Are you sure that's "they were weak and allowed the minority republicans to bully them" and not "they were politicians in DC and took money from the insurance lobby?" I feel pretty confident that "their own principles" are about equally for sale.
Harassing speech looks all the same, so it should be easy to model fairly accurately. Just automatically filter it and have a switch that turns the filter off so that people can check the filter and see if anything they like has been filtered out.
Once people are happy with the filter, they'll want to filter out more stuff, and instead of just having a switch, comment systems all over might get some sort of sliding scale where one doesn't have to look at comments below a certain level of quality.
For investors, understand that not getting dividends from profits is not the same thing as not getting ROI. When you own stock in Amazon, and Amazon builds more of itself, then you own stock in more Amazon, and so your stock becomes more valuable. Also, that increase in value of the stock is considered to be capital gains, whereas money that would come from dividends is considered to be income, which is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. These words may serve to illustrate this better than mine:
I wouldn't feel scared now of stock sales that were commented on in December 2013. If they were indicative of a problem, that problem would have already happened. That graph shows a trend of steady improvement over 10 years with a nice steep slope for the last four. It makes a stronger impression on me.
There is to another way to distinguish "shitty driver guy" from non-shitty driver guy. Shitty driver guy gets traffic citations and has accidents. Privacy guy might well get shitty driver prices if he's 19 and has no driving record to speak of, but if he's got 10 or more years without citations or accidents, insurance companies tend to respect that.
Often, new cars are a luxury purchase under any circumstances. They lose too much value being driven off the lot. If in some future you're poor and you want privacy, the solution might well be a used car.
Are you describing a situation where the car isn't paid for yet, or are you trying to tell me that if I pay in full for a new car, I still don't actually own it?
I hope this works well for them, and I can buy access to the service several years from now. If the satellites pass messages directly to each other and could relay messages between two customers on the ground with the only centralized communications occurring in orbit, then it seems to me that it could be more challenging for organizations like the NSA to get in the middle of large numbers of those user communications simultaneously.
Personally, I think the poor voter turn out in the US happened because gridlock worked for the Republicans. The Republican voters counted stopping the Democrats as accomplishing something, but the Democrat voters felt that they derived no benefit from having voted for the Democrats the last time, so they stayed home.
However, I can't even get people who generally agree with me on most voting related stuff to bother using Enigmail, so even with good voter turnout, I think it'll be quite a long time before voters ever force a quorum of politicians in USA to place the interest of the public ahead of the self interest of the government when it comes to online privacy.
After a fashion, we really owe the nudie thieves a debt of gratitude, because if they hadn't made a big stink, the corporate entities might not have done as much as they're doing now. I'm not sure how it came to pass that stealing photos of famous women (when there's plenty of prettier ones available for free) got better results than the rest of the spying, but I reckon I'll take the results and be glad they're available. Who knows, maybe someday a psychohistorian will show that it was inevitable.
Imagine you build a robot which is as complex as a human, and has software which can respond to its environment and make social interactions and basically be as sophisticated as a human. I think this is quite possible. But here is the issue: it would not need to be sentient. If it is just a machine running a program, why does it need to be sentient? It could do everything, physically process inputs and create outputs, without any need for an observer, someone experiencing the show all the time.
If I built such a machine and it told me that it's sentient and, being capable of social interaction, made a cogent argument for that, who would I be to argue that it isn't?
Why are you sentient? What possible advantage is there to you having an experience of existing? The machine, your body, doesn't need an "experiencer". Why aren't you just a machine responding to the environment, "in the dark" as it were. My camera does not need to be sentient to recognise faces, why do I need to be sentient?
My body needs food. It's very likely that I'd have a hard time convincing an employer to hire me if I wasn't sentient. Dogs seem to be self aware. Maybe people evolved self awareness because it's necessary in order to be higher than dogs on the food chain. Or, rather, we added extra language, memory, and thumbs to our self awareness, which seems easier than spoken language for biological brains.
Do you know of a self consistent math & physics origin theory that's also consistent with what is now known about the origin and structure of the universe, but doesn't include metastable false vacuum?
I think you're right. I should have written 'lack of this universe' instead of 'lack of universe.' I apologize.
Or, you could examine its state and learn that it's impossible to design that query in a way that the algorithm will respond 'yes.' Until you have the particular algorithm in front of you, how can you know? Some people can be talked into suicide and others can't.
I saw a janitor like that once. After telling me I was full of shit, he jumped up very quickly when I turned a Geiger counter on and then moved it closer to the lead lined safe on which he was sitting.
When I read about false vacuum, it sounds like accepting this explanation of the origin of the universe involves accepting that the universe could spontaneously disappear, also - that lack of universe could have started somewhere and be expanding at the speed of light, even now. This feels no fun to me, and I find comfort in my recollection of Skolem's paradox from set theory class, which suggested to me that knowledge about a system (capable of being described by mathematics) that is obtained from within that system - which knowledge appears to be ultimate - has to be suspect.
Law enforcement agents are kind of like people of Islamic faith. It only takes a small percentage to get people looking askance at the whole group, since most of the time it's hard to tell which are members of that small percentage.
This assumes you're unique. If you're one of millions of people using default/secure communication from the likes of Apple and Google, that will tend to mask any additional encryption you bring to the table. Then, you're not a person of interest for using encryption, and you only have to avoid becoming a person of interest the old fashioned way.
Slashdot Mirror
The $37 billion from Yahoo's investment in AliBaba is more significant. It's what's funding this, after all.
This is an olive branch he's extending to the Republicans. Think how much more money they'll get from the cable lobby because he said that.
Are you sure that's "they were weak and allowed the minority republicans to bully them" and not "they were politicians in DC and took money from the insurance lobby?" I feel pretty confident that "their own principles" are about equally for sale.
Harassing speech looks all the same, so it should be easy to model fairly accurately. Just automatically filter it and have a switch that turns the filter off so that people can check the filter and see if anything they like has been filtered out.
Once people are happy with the filter, they'll want to filter out more stuff, and instead of just having a switch, comment systems all over might get some sort of sliding scale where one doesn't have to look at comments below a certain level of quality.
I could write words on this topic, but these words are better than mine would be:
http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2012/11/28/amazon-and-margins
http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works
For investors, understand that not getting dividends from profits is not the same thing as not getting ROI. When you own stock in Amazon, and Amazon builds more of itself, then you own stock in more Amazon, and so your stock becomes more valuable. Also, that increase in value of the stock is considered to be capital gains, whereas money that would come from dividends is considered to be income, which is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. These words may serve to illustrate this better than mine:
http://www.stocksplithistory.com/amazon-com/
I wouldn't feel scared now of stock sales that were commented on in December 2013. If they were indicative of a problem, that problem would have already happened. That graph shows a trend of steady improvement over 10 years with a nice steep slope for the last four. It makes a stronger impression on me.
I typed this long argument against that, but I'll spare you. Take care.
I visited that second link. When I look at the slope of the graph showing revenue growth, I can see why investors don't care.
There is to another way to distinguish "shitty driver guy" from non-shitty driver guy. Shitty driver guy gets traffic citations and has accidents. Privacy guy might well get shitty driver prices if he's 19 and has no driving record to speak of, but if he's got 10 or more years without citations or accidents, insurance companies tend to respect that.
Often, new cars are a luxury purchase under any circumstances. They lose too much value being driven off the lot. If in some future you're poor and you want privacy, the solution might well be a used car.
Are you describing a situation where the car isn't paid for yet, or are you trying to tell me that if I pay in full for a new car, I still don't actually own it?
I wonder what the NSA would pay. If they plan for this in advance, it might provide for significant savings.
I hope this works well for them, and I can buy access to the service several years from now. If the satellites pass messages directly to each other and could relay messages between two customers on the ground with the only centralized communications occurring in orbit, then it seems to me that it could be more challenging for organizations like the NSA to get in the middle of large numbers of those user communications simultaneously.
Personally, I think the poor voter turn out in the US happened because gridlock worked for the Republicans. The Republican voters counted stopping the Democrats as accomplishing something, but the Democrat voters felt that they derived no benefit from having voted for the Democrats the last time, so they stayed home.
However, I can't even get people who generally agree with me on most voting related stuff to bother using Enigmail, so even with good voter turnout, I think it'll be quite a long time before voters ever force a quorum of politicians in USA to place the interest of the public ahead of the self interest of the government when it comes to online privacy.
After a fashion, we really owe the nudie thieves a debt of gratitude, because if they hadn't made a big stink, the corporate entities might not have done as much as they're doing now. I'm not sure how it came to pass that stealing photos of famous women (when there's plenty of prettier ones available for free) got better results than the rest of the spying, but I reckon I'll take the results and be glad they're available. Who knows, maybe someday a psychohistorian will show that it was inevitable.
Imagine you build a robot which is as complex as a human, and has software which can respond to its environment and make social interactions and basically be as sophisticated as a human. I think this is quite possible. But here is the issue: it would not need to be sentient. If it is just a machine running a program, why does it need to be sentient? It could do everything, physically process inputs and create outputs, without any need for an observer, someone experiencing the show all the time.
If I built such a machine and it told me that it's sentient and, being capable of social interaction, made a cogent argument for that, who would I be to argue that it isn't?
Why are you sentient? What possible advantage is there to you having an experience of existing? The machine, your body, doesn't need an "experiencer". Why aren't you just a machine responding to the environment, "in the dark" as it were. My camera does not need to be sentient to recognise faces, why do I need to be sentient?
My body needs food. It's very likely that I'd have a hard time convincing an employer to hire me if I wasn't sentient. Dogs seem to be self aware. Maybe people evolved self awareness because it's necessary in order to be higher than dogs on the food chain. Or, rather, we added extra language, memory, and thumbs to our self awareness, which seems easier than spoken language for biological brains.
Do you know of a self consistent math & physics origin theory that's also consistent with what is now known about the origin and structure of the universe, but doesn't include metastable false vacuum?
I think you're right. I should have written 'lack of this universe' instead of 'lack of universe.' I apologize.
Or, you could examine its state and learn that it's impossible to design that query in a way that the algorithm will respond 'yes.' Until you have the particular algorithm in front of you, how can you know? Some people can be talked into suicide and others can't.
I saw a janitor like that once. After telling me I was full of shit, he jumped up very quickly when I turned a Geiger counter on and then moved it closer to the lead lined safe on which he was sitting.
When I read about false vacuum, it sounds like accepting this explanation of the origin of the universe involves accepting that the universe could spontaneously disappear, also - that lack of universe could have started somewhere and be expanding at the speed of light, even now. This feels no fun to me, and I find comfort in my recollection of Skolem's paradox from set theory class, which suggested to me that knowledge about a system (capable of being described by mathematics) that is obtained from within that system - which knowledge appears to be ultimate - has to be suspect.
Wealth also tends to be hereditary.
Law enforcement agents are kind of like people of Islamic faith. It only takes a small percentage to get people looking askance at the whole group, since most of the time it's hard to tell which are members of that small percentage.
This assumes you're unique. If you're one of millions of people using default/secure communication from the likes of Apple and Google, that will tend to mask any additional encryption you bring to the table. Then, you're not a person of interest for using encryption, and you only have to avoid becoming a person of interest the old fashioned way.
If you like what you see, please buy the actors a coffee. Enema scenes are next.
I had a thermodynamics professor who changed my opinion about statistics like that. It's a great experience to have.
90% of the free rape porn on xvideos features Russians.