Well, I was a fan of personally lit fireworks. Not a huge fan, but a fan. The professional displays I don't bother to watch, and I never understood the reason why they were though equivalent by anyone. The symbolism is totally different.
Of course, a centralized display of fireworks is appropriate for a country that is has centralized control. So in that sense the change of the rules makes sense, with fireworks standing in for control of power.
Copyright is automatic, but I think he may be right that you need to register it before collecting statutory damages. But, IIRC, you can register it before you file the lawsuit, you don't need to register it before the violation.
I'm no lawyer, so this could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it. If you don't register it I think you can only collect the damages that you can demonstrate as actual damages.
You are an anonymous poster on the internet presuming to speak for a government that lies more often than it tells the truth. Why should we believe you?
No, I'm jumping to the conclusion that the guy is being persecuted. They probably haven't yet decided what they're going to charge him with, but they'll come up with something. This isn't the way you contact someone to ask for their help, this is an attempt to bludgeon him with the law. Judging by what has thus far been said, the applicability of the law they're using is quite dubious, but if they can threaten Twitter enough, they can get the guy id'd. This is much more like coercion than asking for help.
This seems clear evidence that if you find an official has made a mistake, you ensure that your notice of that is really anonymous. Possibly by selling it on the black market.
There's two problems with that: 1) Police all over the world have a record of making their job easier by taking the most convenient suspect and getting them convicted. They seem to generally prefer to have honest evidence, but they sure don't require it.
2) The system as reported isn't even good enough for your idealized use case. I'm assuming that it's the same system that was reported a couple of days ago where a representative of the company that sells it was saying it wasn't good enough for this use case.
His phraseology was incorrect, but his explicit intended meaning was probably " In practice, our governments have always been willing to tolerate false positives in our justice system, and most people were willing to accept this."
It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that most people are usually willing to accept accusation by an authority as the equivalent of guilt...unless they feel personally involved.
That wouldn't do it. I suspect the gp uses a "soap" that's got a lot of oil in it. A *lot*. I'm dubious about how clean such soaps get you. But if he's a compulsive hand washer that may be the best choice he has, and just by itself warm water helps a lot.
Washing your hands is good. The practice they are recommending is what is recommended for medical professionals on the job...and not usually followed by them.
There are good reasons to NOT wash your hands that thoroughly. Doing so is likely to damage the skin, leading to rough and cracked skin that literally cannot be washed thoroughly. Most medical practices now recognize this, and I believe that the use of thin plastic gloves rather than depending on excessive hand washing is now uniformly the practice. Before that they had switched to a hand foam sterilizer that was less abusive to the skin, but less isn't not.
For home use, use warm (not hot) water and a decent soap that doesn't irritate the skin, and clean under the fingernails when convenient, and definitely after a bowel movement. Don't be excessive, as that's as damaging as not being sufficient.
Getting the age wrong doesn't mean everything else was wrong. Perhaps it was only 115. She was someone quite elderly who died a few years ago in, I think it was, North Carolina. I probably got the specific type of immune cell wrong, too, and that's also irrelevant to the general point.
IIRC there was an earlier study of someone who had reached the age of 125 and they were down to one variation in immunological stem cell. This would seem to imply that if you want to live much past that, you acquire bubble-boy syndrome.
OTOH, it's true that this was a study of just one individual of that age. And possibly it would be possible to build new immuno stem cells from rejuvenated skin cells. Etc. So they may be ways around it. But at first glance it looks as if there is an inherent lifespan limit unless you tinker with it.
You're projecting several years forwards from this demonstration. This demonstration only deals with three geometric shapes in different primary colors. That it can be developed into something that does more extensive visualization I accept, but this isn't there yet. You could even be projecting over a decade forwards.
Welllll... Saying it figured out how to do this by itself is a bit overstating the case. This wasn't done with fully general purpose neural nets, but with specialized variants. So it's more similar to a specialized sensory node, like, say, the visual cortex + optic nerve... which, of course, is what it's trying to be.
But to say that it "learned by itself" is only correct if you consciously acknowledge that it was crafted to learn this kind of thing.
I think you overestimate the degree to which "sensible" browsing will protect you. I might go a high as 90%, which is no small advantage. Of course if by sensible browsing you mean avoiding browsers that allow javascript and never downloading anything executable, then I'd go as high as 99.9%.
Sorry, but Perl and Python code is programs. You don't trust them from an infected system. Text files you can usually trust, and html that doesn't use javascript or some such. (Not just javascript. You've also got to be careful about allowing CSS, with simple formatting being safe, but anything else needing to be carefully hand checked.) For spreadsheets you should recover from CSV files, but the CSV files can be stored on the disk that got infected. Etc.
But just running code in a virtual machine doesn't make it safe.
It might not make "really earth link" quite that rare, but something that would reduce the likelihood of any particular solar system holding an earthlike planet by, say, a factor of 10,000 would make it quite likely that there wouldn't be one close enough to find.
OTOH, I am a strong believer in "macrolife", i.e. space habitats that roam about at considerably sub-C speeds, and don't really have any destination except "the next good pocket of resources". But since such groups would only move about a little faster than the average rate at which the dust drifts, for reasons of safety, they would not likely be in the neighborhood. When they hit a new solar system some would turn sessile, but others would just reproduce and send off several new groups. We know that the first kind hasn't settled here, because we'd have noticed them by now, but the second kind could have come and gone, and we wouldn't notice until we started mining the moons of the outer planets, or possibly the Oort cloud.
FWIW, they wouldn't be interested in a Earthlike planet even if they had the same conception of what that meant, because any planet that evolves life will be full of allergens that they haven't evolved to cope with, and if they're just going to live in shells, they've already got better ones that they're already living in, and with their's they can even adjust the gravity to suit themselves. (And without life it won't be very Earthlike.)
Well, it's rather thinly spread. If it's ionized I suppose that a Bussard Ramjet could collect it and profitably use it, but it's not certain that a Bussard Ramjet is even possible.
Gravity wouldn't be important, but electromagnetic interactions would be. I'd expect that you'd find both globs and a fine mist, possibly with different components.
OTOH, if these carbon compounds are very light weight (as is likely with little UV to cause them to polymerize) then they'd be likely to evaporate from the globs. (Check what happens to plastics exposed to vacuum. They become brittle because the plasticizers evaporate.)
More to the point, if we were 100 light years from an advanced civilization that was really interested in communication with aliens, they'd have just started on their way...or maybe wouldn't have started yet.
But robot probes seem more likely to me. Not that we'd know about *them*, either.
Sorry, but there are various reasonable hypothesis that would make the Earth a quite rare kind of planet.
E.g., perhaps it's necessary that early in the evolution of the planet it be hit by such a large impactor that the continental plate is fractured into multiple tectonic plates and also yielding a large moon that will keep the mantel layer stirred up. I don't know that this is true, but it *might* be true.
There are multiple other reasons that the Earth may have experienced a crucial event in its history that was essential to the development of multicellular life. None of them are certain, but also none are totally implausible.
I think given multicellular life intelligence was inevitable, but I'm not as certain of language. Also may forms of life are less adaptable to life outside a small range of conditions than are humans. This may go back to climate changes that were happening about the time the hominids were differentiating. While it's true that humans are not the only invasive species, there are a very large number of species that aren't. If one of those became intelligent, it's path of development would be very different from ours. They might be either very demanding environmentalists, or they might swing totally towards artificial control over all aspects of the environment, but they'd certainly be different. E.g., it might cause them enough problems in spreading that they never developed races, because technological transportation capabilities kept groups from being isolated.
Please note that NONE of this is necessarily true, but also none is false. You can't rightfully assume either that there's nothing unusual about the Earth, or that the Earth is special and rare. There are too many unknowns.
You are wrongly complaining about the Fermi Paradox when what you should properly be complaining about is the Drake Equation. They aren't the same thing at all.
It's true that the Drake Equation is frequently used to answer the Fermi Paradox, but this doesn't mean that all answers to one apply to the other.
E.g., one possible answer to the Fermi Paradox is that advanced technological civilizations inevitably develop addictive computer games and become so introverted that they lose all outside interest. If this happens to be true the results of the Drake equation would have absolutely no relevance to the Fermi Paradox.
There's a big question as to whether the cloud servers *CAN* be patched. This latest round of bugs seem to all depend upon hyperthreading implementations in the microcode. Intel's recent history of patching that kind of thing is dubious, to be kind. And actually with a bit of outright malicious thrown in. (Linus was quite upset.)
Personally, I'm dubious about the whole hyperthreading architecture. I think they should go/have gone with lots more simpler processors.
Slashdot Mirror
So is paper and printing.
Well, I was a fan of personally lit fireworks. Not a huge fan, but a fan. The professional displays I don't bother to watch, and I never understood the reason why they were though equivalent by anyone. The symbolism is totally different.
Of course, a centralized display of fireworks is appropriate for a country that is has centralized control. So in that sense the change of the rules makes sense, with fireworks standing in for control of power.
Copyright is automatic, but I think he may be right that you need to register it before collecting statutory damages. But, IIRC, you can register it before you file the lawsuit, you don't need to register it before the violation.
I'm no lawyer, so this could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it. If you don't register it I think you can only collect the damages that you can demonstrate as actual damages.
You are an anonymous poster on the internet presuming to speak for a government that lies more often than it tells the truth. Why should we believe you?
No, I'm jumping to the conclusion that the guy is being persecuted. They probably haven't yet decided what they're going to charge him with, but they'll come up with something. This isn't the way you contact someone to ask for their help, this is an attempt to bludgeon him with the law. Judging by what has thus far been said, the applicability of the law they're using is quite dubious, but if they can threaten Twitter enough, they can get the guy id'd. This is much more like coercion than asking for help.
This seems clear evidence that if you find an official has made a mistake, you ensure that your notice of that is really anonymous. Possibly by selling it on the black market.
There's two problems with that:
1) Police all over the world have a record of making their job easier by taking the most convenient suspect and getting them convicted. They seem to generally prefer to have honest evidence, but they sure don't require it.
2) The system as reported isn't even good enough for your idealized use case. I'm assuming that it's the same system that was reported a couple of days ago where a representative of the company that sells it was saying it wasn't good enough for this use case.
His phraseology was incorrect, but his explicit intended meaning was probably " In practice, our governments have always been willing to tolerate false positives in our justice system, and most people were willing to accept this."
It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that most people are usually willing to accept accusation by an authority as the equivalent of guilt...unless they feel personally involved.
That wouldn't do it. I suspect the gp uses a "soap" that's got a lot of oil in it. A *lot*. I'm dubious about how clean such soaps get you. But if he's a compulsive hand washer that may be the best choice he has, and just by itself warm water helps a lot.
Washing your hands is good. The practice they are recommending is what is recommended for medical professionals on the job...and not usually followed by them.
There are good reasons to NOT wash your hands that thoroughly. Doing so is likely to damage the skin, leading to rough and cracked skin that literally cannot be washed thoroughly. Most medical practices now recognize this, and I believe that the use of thin plastic gloves rather than depending on excessive hand washing is now uniformly the practice. Before that they had switched to a hand foam sterilizer that was less abusive to the skin, but less isn't not.
For home use, use warm (not hot) water and a decent soap that doesn't irritate the skin, and clean under the fingernails when convenient, and definitely after a bowel movement. Don't be excessive, as that's as damaging as not being sufficient.
Getting the age wrong doesn't mean everything else was wrong. Perhaps it was only 115. She was someone quite elderly who died a few years ago in, I think it was, North Carolina. I probably got the specific type of immune cell wrong, too, and that's also irrelevant to the general point.
IIRC there was an earlier study of someone who had reached the age of 125 and they were down to one variation in immunological stem cell. This would seem to imply that if you want to live much past that, you acquire bubble-boy syndrome.
OTOH, it's true that this was a study of just one individual of that age. And possibly it would be possible to build new immuno stem cells from rejuvenated skin cells. Etc. So they may be ways around it. But at first glance it looks as if there is an inherent lifespan limit unless you tinker with it.
You're projecting several years forwards from this demonstration. This demonstration only deals with three geometric shapes in different primary colors. That it can be developed into something that does more extensive visualization I accept, but this isn't there yet. You could even be projecting over a decade forwards.
Welllll... ... which, of course, is what it's trying to be.
Saying it figured out how to do this by itself is a bit overstating the case. This wasn't done with fully general purpose neural nets, but with specialized variants. So it's more similar to a specialized sensory node, like, say, the visual cortex + optic nerve
But to say that it "learned by itself" is only correct if you consciously acknowledge that it was crafted to learn this kind of thing.
What grounds do you have for believing that intelligence is anything besides advanced (well, quite advanced) pattern recognition?
Actually, there clearly are a few additional features, but can you identify them?
I think you overestimate the degree to which "sensible" browsing will protect you. I might go a high as 90%, which is no small advantage. Of course if by sensible browsing you mean avoiding browsers that allow javascript and never downloading anything executable, then I'd go as high as 99.9%.
Sorry, but Perl and Python code is programs. You don't trust them from an infected system. Text files you can usually trust, and html that doesn't use javascript or some such. (Not just javascript. You've also got to be careful about allowing CSS, with simple formatting being safe, but anything else needing to be carefully hand checked.) For spreadsheets you should recover from CSV files, but the CSV files can be stored on the disk that got infected. Etc.
But just running code in a virtual machine doesn't make it safe.
It might not make "really earth link" quite that rare, but something that would reduce the likelihood of any particular solar system holding an earthlike planet by, say, a factor of 10,000 would make it quite likely that there wouldn't be one close enough to find.
OTOH, I am a strong believer in "macrolife", i.e. space habitats that roam about at considerably sub-C speeds, and don't really have any destination except "the next good pocket of resources". But since such groups would only move about a little faster than the average rate at which the dust drifts, for reasons of safety, they would not likely be in the neighborhood. When they hit a new solar system some would turn sessile, but others would just reproduce and send off several new groups. We know that the first kind hasn't settled here, because we'd have noticed them by now, but the second kind could have come and gone, and we wouldn't notice until we started mining the moons of the outer planets, or possibly the Oort cloud.
FWIW, they wouldn't be interested in a Earthlike planet even if they had the same conception of what that meant, because any planet that evolves life will be full of allergens that they haven't evolved to cope with, and if they're just going to live in shells, they've already got better ones that they're already living in, and with their's they can even adjust the gravity to suit themselves. (And without life it won't be very Earthlike.)
Well, it's rather thinly spread. If it's ionized I suppose that a Bussard Ramjet could collect it and profitably use it, but it's not certain that a Bussard Ramjet is even possible.
Well, I've seen other claims that Bussard Ramjets are impossible, but since we don't have controlled fusion yet they can't be properly evaluated.
OTOH, this could make it work even better. Carbon is a catalyst in some reactions that fuse Hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gravity wouldn't be important, but electromagnetic interactions would be. I'd expect that you'd find both globs and a fine mist, possibly with different components.
OTOH, if these carbon compounds are very light weight (as is likely with little UV to cause them to polymerize) then they'd be likely to evaporate from the globs. (Check what happens to plastics exposed to vacuum. They become brittle because the plasticizers evaporate.)
More to the point, if we were 100 light years from an advanced civilization that was really interested in communication with aliens, they'd have just started on their way...or maybe wouldn't have started yet.
But robot probes seem more likely to me. Not that we'd know about *them*, either.
Sorry, but there are various reasonable hypothesis that would make the Earth a quite rare kind of planet.
E.g., perhaps it's necessary that early in the evolution of the planet it be hit by such a large impactor that the continental plate is fractured into multiple tectonic plates and also yielding a large moon that will keep the mantel layer stirred up. I don't know that this is true, but it *might* be true.
There are multiple other reasons that the Earth may have experienced a crucial event in its history that was essential to the development of multicellular life. None of them are certain, but also none are totally implausible.
I think given multicellular life intelligence was inevitable, but I'm not as certain of language. Also may forms of life are less adaptable to life outside a small range of conditions than are humans. This may go back to climate changes that were happening about the time the hominids were differentiating. While it's true that humans are not the only invasive species, there are a very large number of species that aren't. If one of those became intelligent, it's path of development would be very different from ours. They might be either very demanding environmentalists, or they might swing totally towards artificial control over all aspects of the environment, but they'd certainly be different. E.g., it might cause them enough problems in spreading that they never developed races, because technological transportation capabilities kept groups from being isolated.
Please note that NONE of this is necessarily true, but also none is false. You can't rightfully assume either that there's nothing unusual about the Earth, or that the Earth is special and rare. There are too many unknowns.
You are wrongly complaining about the Fermi Paradox when what you should properly be complaining about is the Drake Equation. They aren't the same thing at all.
It's true that the Drake Equation is frequently used to answer the Fermi Paradox, but this doesn't mean that all answers to one apply to the other.
E.g., one possible answer to the Fermi Paradox is that advanced technological civilizations inevitably develop addictive computer games and become so introverted that they lose all outside interest. If this happens to be true the results of the Drake equation would have absolutely no relevance to the Fermi Paradox.
There's a big question as to whether the cloud servers *CAN* be patched. This latest round of bugs seem to all depend upon hyperthreading implementations in the microcode. Intel's recent history of patching that kind of thing is dubious, to be kind. And actually with a bit of outright malicious thrown in. (Linus was quite upset.)
Personally, I'm dubious about the whole hyperthreading architecture. I think they should go/have gone with lots more simpler processors.