Could indeed - and it doesn't happen much. Except maybe, really maybe, at banks when depositing cash in the machines - the over-the-counter cash deposits just go in the drawer between the other notes. However when depositing foreign currency, like USD or EUR, I've experienced the bank marking the stack with whom deposited it for later checking for counterfeit notes.
Next, you can pretty much keep tabs on who is recording incoming payments. For practical reasons, such scans will have to be done on the spot, in conjunction with some other piece of identification such as a store card. If not anonymous it'll be really obvious.
Finally the records are made locally, in a store or in a bank, and are not public. Most shops would have a direct interest in keeping it private, as it may be valuable information for competitors.
This in contrast to bitcoin. All bitcoin transactions are recorded, including identification of payer and payee. Records are public and perpetual (can be found easily in the blockchain), with all transactions traceable to who originally mined it. It may be a lot of work to do so, it still is possible. It may be hard to link wallets to individual people, it will be relatively easy to find suspected transaction combinations such as individually harmless components to make certain narcotics, even when bought at a number of different stores.
So all in all, cash is pretty anonymous. Bitcoin is not.
The first few hours after the explosions I also saw such headlines - there wasn't anything known other than that there was an explosion at the airport, soon followed by the news of an explosion at the metro station. At the time, cause unknown. Especially if it's just a single explosion at the airport it could be anything, and calling it "terrorist" off the bat would be jumping to conclusions.
Within hours it was confirmed it was a terrorist attack, after which it took several hours more before it appeared here on/. so now they can firmly say it's a terrorist attack, not just an explosion.
So no bias; just updating headlines to go with the available information.
Absolutely. Not much, other than the regular bombings by the ETA in Spain, the IRA in the UK and the RAF in Germany, and once a plane falling on Lockerbie, Scotland, killing hundreds in one go, various train hijackings in The Netherlands, all the airplane hijackings across the globe... that just from the top of my head. There may be more but half of that period you ask for I didn't exist.
What is worse is that farmers can be sued for producing their own seeds, from non-GMO crops, but they get contaminated due to bees bringing in pollen from nearby fields with GMO crops. As a result the patented genes end up as contamination in what should have been non-GMO crops, and in the end everything under the sun is owned by Monsanto et.al. It goes further than Monsanto customers trying to save seeds to grow next season. The saddest part here is that Monsanto has sued, and won judgements against, those farmers that are trying to stay away from GMO but can't due to this cross-contamination.
I do think the event should have had male dancers for the ladies and gay males, if they were going to go down this road.
Interestingly it seems the vast majority of women enjoy looking at sexy women (even if they identify as purely straight). I've read several research articles about this, with one going as far as claiming all women are either bisexual or lesbian (for being sexually aroused by looking at women).
This matches quite well with some real-life examples. The inventors of the Spice Girls once proclaimed they were looking at a girls' group rather than a boys' group as everyone likes to look at women, but only women like to look at men. Another is a more recent one where I saw some kind of beauty contest going on, and the audience was >80% female, and they were obviously enjoying the show very much.
Sure, most women also like looking at pretty men, but it's not that necessary to add them in the mix if it comes to pleasing the ladies as well.
It's not that hard to believe considering there was nothing decent out there at the time. iOS was pretty much the first purpose built, user friendly smart phone OS out there - and it was pretty new in 2008.
No double standards that I can see considering the device issued to Obama no doubt came with back doors for the NSA, the FBI, and maybe some others built in already. That's exactly what they want Apple to provide for them as well.
Really wondering why one would want a tablet for alarm clock. Or are you all really so nice to your alarm clock when it rings in the morning? I for one am quite happy that I can just have my hand land on it without too much control and it stops. Stick out hand in the approximate direction the sound comes from and drop it. Thrown it off the cabinet on the floor a few times in the process as well. Wouldn't want to do all that to a tablet.
By that point users ignored BB and were happy with an inferior product (BB 10 had features you simply couldn't get from other phone OSes and still can't get, and it even ran Android apps)
Obviously those features were not exactly important to most of the BB user base, or to other smart phone users, considering it was no reason to stick to BB or interesting enough for other smart phone OS makers to copy.
People that want to run Android apps generally prefer an Android phone. Your argument makes me think of the good old OS/2 which failed "even though it could run Windows applications" (and when doing so indeed crashed less often than the then state-of-the-art Win 3.1). It is just a poor fix for not having your own native applications available. Ever wondered why no-one bothered to make these apps for BB as well?
I actually thought it was flashblock screwing up but my wife has noticed it for months and complained that youtube is "unusable".
I for one would also first blame YouTube not working well as they start presenting errors. I'm not going to wait for an error to go away by itself - error means error to me, not "wait a while". It's anyway odd that they'd start showing errors instead of a "please switch off AdBlock" message.
Oxide, not oxygen (good luck getting the latter solid at room temperature).
Most oxides are not explosive at all, they're often among the most stable compounds. Most of the earth is built up out of oxides. Many catalysts are oxides - this application is one such example.
How the hydrogen is stored and supplied to the fuel cell is my biggest question.
The gas is infamous for requiring very high pressure and very low temperature to remain liquid, and even then has pretty low energy density (large volume, however low weight - but the heavy tank takes away that advantage). Wondering how they solve that for an application where limiting size and weight are paramount.
This surely won't be the last such attempt of going for height records. People always like to seek limits and surpass them. The only thing I can really fault this person for is not notifying air traffic control about the attempt.
A more sensible idea over an outright ban would be a mechanism to allow for such attempts. Weather balloons routinely go way higher than these drones, and don't cause problems, so why can't drones be treated like them? Get similar regulations/licenses/whatever as there are for balloons. If we can handle uncontrollable, freely floating balloons passing though commercial airspace (all the way to above the normal limit of airliners) then we certainly can make arrangements for drones to safely do the same. In some countries people even like to fire home-made rockets, which also may reach heights well into commercial air space, without causing any danger for other aircraft as it's all regulated so they can avoid one another.
I for one would love to be able to get a drone and see how high it can get. Max out the battery, optimise the weight, and add a small parachute and GPS locator. Send it off, and when the battery reaches 5% have it trigger the chute and gently drop down. Must be able to get a lot higher than that 3.4 km. I fully understand you can't do it just anywhere, but why not in the existing paths of weather balloons? Why not in a specific area that's normally not used by commercial airliners, but instead can be reserved for this kind of flights?
The ceiling of 120m is fine for overall use in most countries (where I live it's a bit low as the average height of a residential block is well above that), but is it really that hard to make exceptions?
I bet it can use it's props for autorotate, but unless you can generate some power from it, you don't have any form of control as the battery is flat. Those drones don't look like they're exactly aerodynamically stable enough for this.
What I do wonder is how much difference it makes for the final impact when falling from 120m or 3400m. I expect the 120m to be enough to reach terminal velocity.
Do they even have that many shells in working condition, and all at the correct location - i.e. right next to operable guns that are at a location they can do some real damage?
You act as if ammo is and will not be a limiting factor. It may very well be.
We don't know his age, but do know his years of experience being in power (just over four years now at the top, longer in other functions in the NK government).
I'm wondering for how much longer he'll be called "inexperienced". I've never seen that word being used on any of your US presidential candidates, most of whom have far less experience when it comes to leading a country.
That doesn't negate the point that AI can still easily eliminate 99% of human errors (if only because those human programmers have no time pressure in making decisions on how to drive in various circumstances), and with that most accidents.
Some 99% of accidents are caused by human error. An autonomous vehicle will be able to prevent almost all of those errors - especially those from the vehicle it controls, and will be able to correct for lots of errors from other vehicles and other traffic (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists) in the process.
There'll always be situations that a human would have solved differently, maybe preventing an accident, and of course everyone will be talking about that one incident but not about the 100 or even 1000 incidents the autonomous vehicle did prevent (after all, those didn't happen). Those human errors of course include all those situations of speeding, missing a red light, overlooking a side street that has right of way, forgetting to look in a rear view mirror when setting off, not stopping in time, etc.
For the distance driven by autonomous cars, human drivers would statistically have had a couple dozen crashes already. The self-driving cars have been involved in a few crashes, all due to failure of humans, and that number is statistically low. There's now just one incident where the driverless car may have been responsible (but from what I read about it, that's debatable).
Concorde had only a very limited number of flights compared to other aircraft types and airplane crashes are extremely rare, so one incident has a big impact. Instead the autonomous vehicle is already many crashes behind on the average human driver, so to even catch up with humans it has to cause easily a dozen serious crashes in the next week or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Could indeed - and it doesn't happen much. Except maybe, really maybe, at banks when depositing cash in the machines - the over-the-counter cash deposits just go in the drawer between the other notes. However when depositing foreign currency, like USD or EUR, I've experienced the bank marking the stack with whom deposited it for later checking for counterfeit notes.
Next, you can pretty much keep tabs on who is recording incoming payments. For practical reasons, such scans will have to be done on the spot, in conjunction with some other piece of identification such as a store card. If not anonymous it'll be really obvious.
Finally the records are made locally, in a store or in a bank, and are not public. Most shops would have a direct interest in keeping it private, as it may be valuable information for competitors.
This in contrast to bitcoin. All bitcoin transactions are recorded, including identification of payer and payee. Records are public and perpetual (can be found easily in the blockchain), with all transactions traceable to who originally mined it. It may be a lot of work to do so, it still is possible. It may be hard to link wallets to individual people, it will be relatively easy to find suspected transaction combinations such as individually harmless components to make certain narcotics, even when bought at a number of different stores.
So all in all, cash is pretty anonymous. Bitcoin is not.
The first few hours after the explosions I also saw such headlines - there wasn't anything known other than that there was an explosion at the airport, soon followed by the news of an explosion at the metro station. At the time, cause unknown. Especially if it's just a single explosion at the airport it could be anything, and calling it "terrorist" off the bat would be jumping to conclusions.
Within hours it was confirmed it was a terrorist attack, after which it took several hours more before it appeared here on /. so now they can firmly say it's a terrorist attack, not just an explosion.
So no bias; just updating headlines to go with the available information.
Absolutely. Not much, other than the regular bombings by the ETA in Spain, the IRA in the UK and the RAF in Germany, and once a plane falling on Lockerbie, Scotland, killing hundreds in one go, various train hijackings in The Netherlands, all the airplane hijackings across the globe... that just from the top of my head. There may be more but half of that period you ask for I didn't exist.
What is worse is that farmers can be sued for producing their own seeds, from non-GMO crops, but they get contaminated due to bees bringing in pollen from nearby fields with GMO crops. As a result the patented genes end up as contamination in what should have been non-GMO crops, and in the end everything under the sun is owned by Monsanto et.al. It goes further than Monsanto customers trying to save seeds to grow next season. The saddest part here is that Monsanto has sued, and won judgements against, those farmers that are trying to stay away from GMO but can't due to this cross-contamination.
I do think the event should have had male dancers for the ladies and gay males, if they were going to go down this road.
Interestingly it seems the vast majority of women enjoy looking at sexy women (even if they identify as purely straight). I've read several research articles about this, with one going as far as claiming all women are either bisexual or lesbian (for being sexually aroused by looking at women).
This matches quite well with some real-life examples. The inventors of the Spice Girls once proclaimed they were looking at a girls' group rather than a boys' group as everyone likes to look at women, but only women like to look at men. Another is a more recent one where I saw some kind of beauty contest going on, and the audience was >80% female, and they were obviously enjoying the show very much.
Sure, most women also like looking at pretty men, but it's not that necessary to add them in the mix if it comes to pleasing the ladies as well.
And who had the rest? Symbian and iOS?
It's not that hard to believe considering there was nothing decent out there at the time. iOS was pretty much the first purpose built, user friendly smart phone OS out there - and it was pretty new in 2008.
Considering the job I can imagine that (3) is not an option to them.
No double standards that I can see considering the device issued to Obama no doubt came with back doors for the NSA, the FBI, and maybe some others built in already. That's exactly what they want Apple to provide for them as well.
Isn't it much easier to have other people record the show and trim the ads for you, and then you just download the torrent later?
Really wondering why one would want a tablet for alarm clock. Or are you all really so nice to your alarm clock when it rings in the morning? I for one am quite happy that I can just have my hand land on it without too much control and it stops. Stick out hand in the approximate direction the sound comes from and drop it. Thrown it off the cabinet on the floor a few times in the process as well. Wouldn't want to do all that to a tablet.
By that point users ignored BB and were happy with an inferior product (BB 10 had features you simply couldn't get from other phone OSes and still can't get, and it even ran Android apps)
Obviously those features were not exactly important to most of the BB user base, or to other smart phone users, considering it was no reason to stick to BB or interesting enough for other smart phone OS makers to copy.
People that want to run Android apps generally prefer an Android phone. Your argument makes me think of the good old OS/2 which failed "even though it could run Windows applications" (and when doing so indeed crashed less often than the then state-of-the-art Win 3.1). It is just a poor fix for not having your own native applications available. Ever wondered why no-one bothered to make these apps for BB as well?
I actually thought it was flashblock screwing up but my wife has noticed it for months and complained that youtube is "unusable".
I for one would also first blame YouTube not working well as they start presenting errors. I'm not going to wait for an error to go away by itself - error means error to me, not "wait a while". It's anyway odd that they'd start showing errors instead of a "please switch off AdBlock" message.
That's the metal - after the oxidation reaction (which is that fierce burning you refer to) the aluminium oxide is not explosive any more.
Now try exploding alumina instead.
Oxide, not oxygen (good luck getting the latter solid at room temperature).
Most oxides are not explosive at all, they're often among the most stable compounds. Most of the earth is built up out of oxides. Many catalysts are oxides - this application is one such example.
How the hydrogen is stored and supplied to the fuel cell is my biggest question.
The gas is infamous for requiring very high pressure and very low temperature to remain liquid, and even then has pretty low energy density (large volume, however low weight - but the heavy tank takes away that advantage). Wondering how they solve that for an application where limiting size and weight are paramount.
Thousands of times?
The alleged theft falls under criminal law.
This surely won't be the last such attempt of going for height records. People always like to seek limits and surpass them. The only thing I can really fault this person for is not notifying air traffic control about the attempt.
A more sensible idea over an outright ban would be a mechanism to allow for such attempts. Weather balloons routinely go way higher than these drones, and don't cause problems, so why can't drones be treated like them? Get similar regulations/licenses/whatever as there are for balloons. If we can handle uncontrollable, freely floating balloons passing though commercial airspace (all the way to above the normal limit of airliners) then we certainly can make arrangements for drones to safely do the same. In some countries people even like to fire home-made rockets, which also may reach heights well into commercial air space, without causing any danger for other aircraft as it's all regulated so they can avoid one another.
I for one would love to be able to get a drone and see how high it can get. Max out the battery, optimise the weight, and add a small parachute and GPS locator. Send it off, and when the battery reaches 5% have it trigger the chute and gently drop down. Must be able to get a lot higher than that 3.4 km. I fully understand you can't do it just anywhere, but why not in the existing paths of weather balloons? Why not in a specific area that's normally not used by commercial airliners, but instead can be reserved for this kind of flights?
The ceiling of 120m is fine for overall use in most countries (where I live it's a bit low as the average height of a residential block is well above that), but is it really that hard to make exceptions?
Turning the thing upside-down would do the trick, no?
I bet it can use it's props for autorotate, but unless you can generate some power from it, you don't have any form of control as the battery is flat. Those drones don't look like they're exactly aerodynamically stable enough for this.
What I do wonder is how much difference it makes for the final impact when falling from 120m or 3400m. I expect the 120m to be enough to reach terminal velocity.
Do they even have that many shells in working condition, and all at the correct location - i.e. right next to operable guns that are at a location they can do some real damage?
You act as if ammo is and will not be a limiting factor. It may very well be.
We don't know his age, but do know his years of experience being in power (just over four years now at the top, longer in other functions in the NK government).
I'm wondering for how much longer he'll be called "inexperienced". I've never seen that word being used on any of your US presidential candidates, most of whom have far less experience when it comes to leading a country.
That doesn't negate the point that AI can still easily eliminate 99% of human errors (if only because those human programmers have no time pressure in making decisions on how to drive in various circumstances), and with that most accidents.
Some 99% of accidents are caused by human error. An autonomous vehicle will be able to prevent almost all of those errors - especially those from the vehicle it controls, and will be able to correct for lots of errors from other vehicles and other traffic (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists) in the process.
There'll always be situations that a human would have solved differently, maybe preventing an accident, and of course everyone will be talking about that one incident but not about the 100 or even 1000 incidents the autonomous vehicle did prevent (after all, those didn't happen). Those human errors of course include all those situations of speeding, missing a red light, overlooking a side street that has right of way, forgetting to look in a rear view mirror when setting off, not stopping in time, etc.
For the distance driven by autonomous cars, human drivers would statistically have had a couple dozen crashes already. The self-driving cars have been involved in a few crashes, all due to failure of humans, and that number is statistically low. There's now just one incident where the driverless car may have been responsible (but from what I read about it, that's debatable).
Concorde had only a very limited number of flights compared to other aircraft types and airplane crashes are extremely rare, so one incident has a big impact. Instead the autonomous vehicle is already many crashes behind on the average human driver, so to even catch up with humans it has to cause easily a dozen serious crashes in the next week or so.