From what we've seen, companies have a massive incentive to violate consumer privacy in the form of free-market competition for advertising. The better the ad-platform, the higher the market value, etc. With this model, businesses who fail to deliver on explicitly purchased privacy are immediately guilty of false advertising. More than that, Comcast may have a vested interest in keeping -others- from snooping, too. It's good advertising to say your broadband connection actively combats to prevent unauthorized cross-site scripting. It creates a lucrative consumer market -for- privacy protection. Like it or not, money usually gets more done than government mandates.
China is a billion strong, you're only going to see the best and brightest make it to top overseas Universities.
That reflects on what it takes to rise to the top in a large, overpopulated country with rampant poverty - you worked with the best of the best of the best.
This is semantic manipulation on the part of pro-choice groups. The term is pro-life, not anti-choice, anti-abortion. Otherwise, we may well refer to pro-choice as "anti-life, pro-murder," etc. It was actually documented by Steven Pinker that the Democratic party has hired linguists to shape their rhetoric using conceptual semantics, of which this is a manifestation.
This is a question of naming convention. You'd still be on the equator, because the equator is a circular belt around the Earth. You may be in a different location on the equator, but you'd still be on the equator. Further, Rotational mathematics is modular, so technically any direction is due south from the south pole. E.g. rotation along the complex plane from the positive real number line will always end up at the positive real number line again. Hence the roots of unity always end up back at 1, no matter how close to 1 they may start. Therefore poles is correct.
Apple literally has $178,000M in cash on hand, and the state had better ensure that $40M go to educating their future workforce.
Seriously. The good press Apple would have received to fund that project would be mind numbing, and probably pay for itself in terms of the PR and 'free' advertising that would result.
That's like saying we'll call exponentiation into question because a population's growth didn't follow an exponential rule. Mathematics is inviolable, therefore if observation doesn't line up with it, we must amend our understanding of our observation (i.e. find new mathematical models to use instead.) E.g. if science says animal populations increase exponentially, and we find a population of animals that has not increased exponentially, we don't throw out mathematics, we throw out the model that says populations increase exponentially!
Game Theory stands forever. Empirical observation, however, is infinitely more flawed than math. It's much more likely we failed to understand how natural selection works, and that our mathematical models were wrong. Calling into question fundamental mathematics when your science doesn't make the cut is absolute dogmatic thinking. "Math disproved my theory... MATH MUST BE WRONG!" Seriously.
Seriously, you never know when some previous programmed made a "duplicate" function to do something bizarre, like force a particular initialization order of static-class-member variables between translation units. Sometimes deleting pointless code can do... terrible things. Just be careful, test your changes, etc.
Noise helps pedestrians be aware of that two-ton piece of metal and plastic hurdling down the road. If a vehicle is too silent, it increases the risk of pedestrian-vehicle accidents. Noise is good, and we may as well may it something we're familiar with.
This is a well known practice in advertising companies. Targeting advertising that's too accurate is creepy, so they filter in junk content so you don't feel uncomfortable. Here's an interesting article about the practice:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
We all know after any wrong doing, a person must offer up at least three goats to the Social Justice Warrior spirits in order to quench their bloodlust.
Better to have robots fight than people. Also once we have a lot of machine control APIs it won't be hard to make killer robots. I can make a paintball gun that shoots everyone but myself using a computer, a couple of high powered servos, a linear actuator, two cameras, and IBM's machine vision API. The fundamental technology just needs to be repurposed, so you're never going to stop the threat of killer machines.
Well, I will admit my latest experience loading Ubuntu on a VM has been a pain in the rump. VirtualBox couldn't get the resolution right, but connected to the Internet fine, Hyper-V got the resolution right but couldn't get the Internet to work. Pft.
I owned an iPad 2 since its launch, about three months ago someone broke into my house and stole it (among other things.) I decided it was time to go shopping, and finally settled on a first generation Surface Pro.
After using it for three months, I can say I prefer it over my laptop *and* my iPad. When I want to develop software, I switch to the desktop and plug in an external monitor (which means I get a second 10-inch screen to load documentation or whatever.) When I want to browse casually, I just unplug it from the extra monitor and go mobile. I don't like the screen aspect ratio (too tall and skinny in portrait) and the battery life needs work. It's also a bit heavy, and the app store isn't as rich.
Still, it has been incredibly nice to have access to my desktop and tablet all in one package. As a desktop, it's actually pretty solid. I don't do heavy media editing (most of my software development involves financial accounts) so it hasn't so much as hiccuped with what I've thrown at it. Now, I don't feel like the Surface Pro is better than an iPad as a tablet, though it's a solid desktop and a decent tablet. Still, having my desktop in such a small form factor has been a dream.
It feels like the natural progression if technology. When someone gets the hybrid-OS to work right, I could see desktops, laptops, phones, and tablets all becoming the same product in a way.
Lets not mince words; These "activists" want the man fired over his private political views. That's what this is about: They want heads to roll, they want someone to lose their job over a private donation. That is hateful bologna. It is sick and wrong to try to get someone fired over something like that.
If a company axed a low level employee for donating to a pro-gay campaign, people would crap a collective brick at the prospect of firing an employee over their private political actions. This isn't about criticizing someone for their views, this is about actively trying to get someone fired over their private, away-from-work political actions. That's wrong, and hateful. We try to ruin people's lives over a bad political choice or donation, we reason with them intelligently and kindly, with love and care. This whole "death to those who oppose pro-gay-legislation" is warped and wrong. Even gays I know are fed up with how hateful the pro-gay movement has become. Back, the hell, OFF. Your hate and cruelty is not making things better for gays.
Classical information, anonymous moron. You can't send something between two points on Minkowski Space along a geodesic that's undefined. Now go Google what I just said because it's pretty clear which of us has actually studied modern physics.
But the conspiring forces can't know what the quasars are sending off! That's the point. Nothing is capable of containing information pertaining to what the quasars have sent, because it's impossible to have made a round trip to find out ahead of time. Therefore, even if the forces can influence the scientist's choice of quasar, the mysterious force still has no idea which quasar will say what, so it can't rig the experiment.
As an analogy, imagine there are three settings: A, B, and C. The mysterious force wants to rig the experiment by forcing the scientist to select setting B. The scientist, to get around this, allows three quasars to select a setting. One of the quasars will pick A, one B, and one will select C. The scientist will then pick one of the quasars to set the settings. The mysterious force can choose which quasar the scientist will pick, but the mysterious force doesn't know which quasar will send which setting, therefore it can't force the scientist to pick B.
Because there cannot be casual information communication between a star of that distance and something on the Earth. In otherwords, there cannot be conspiracy between two things which are physically incapable of communication.
Slashdot Mirror
From what we've seen, companies have a massive incentive to violate consumer privacy in the form of free-market competition for advertising. The better the ad-platform, the higher the market value, etc. With this model, businesses who fail to deliver on explicitly purchased privacy are immediately guilty of false advertising. More than that, Comcast may have a vested interest in keeping -others- from snooping, too. It's good advertising to say your broadband connection actively combats to prevent unauthorized cross-site scripting. It creates a lucrative consumer market -for- privacy protection. Like it or not, money usually gets more done than government mandates.
This, HARD.
China is a billion strong, you're only going to see the best and brightest make it to top overseas Universities.
That reflects on what it takes to rise to the top in a large, overpopulated country with rampant poverty - you worked with the best of the best of the best.
I would love to mod you up for the insightful correction on what I said (and kudos on the citations!)
Packet switching - aka ARPANET- was US funded. The IP/TCP/HTTP/HTML stack was developed at CERN, EU.
Actually, ciphertext to ciphertext operations are entirely possible from a mathematical point of view, it's called Homomorphic Encryption.
This is semantic manipulation on the part of pro-choice groups. The term is pro-life, not anti-choice, anti-abortion. Otherwise, we may well refer to pro-choice as "anti-life, pro-murder," etc. It was actually documented by Steven Pinker that the Democratic party has hired linguists to shape their rhetoric using conceptual semantics, of which this is a manifestation.
This is a question of naming convention. You'd still be on the equator, because the equator is a circular belt around the Earth. You may be in a different location on the equator, but you'd still be on the equator. Further, Rotational mathematics is modular, so technically any direction is due south from the south pole. E.g. rotation along the complex plane from the positive real number line will always end up at the positive real number line again. Hence the roots of unity always end up back at 1, no matter how close to 1 they may start. Therefore poles is correct.
Eh, my first thought was "the equator." But poles seem to work, too.
How much havoc will a bunch of nails in the road cause? People have plenty of ways to do bad things with relative ease.
Apple literally has $178,000M in cash on hand, and the state had better ensure that $40M go to educating their future workforce.
Seriously. The good press Apple would have received to fund that project would be mind numbing, and probably pay for itself in terms of the PR and 'free' advertising that would result.
... Because Game Theory is math?
Math.
That's like saying we'll call exponentiation into question because a population's growth didn't follow an exponential rule. Mathematics is inviolable, therefore if observation doesn't line up with it, we must amend our understanding of our observation (i.e. find new mathematical models to use instead.) E.g. if science says animal populations increase exponentially, and we find a population of animals that has not increased exponentially, we don't throw out mathematics, we throw out the model that says populations increase exponentially!
Game Theory stands forever. Empirical observation, however, is infinitely more flawed than math. It's much more likely we failed to understand how natural selection works, and that our mathematical models were wrong. Calling into question fundamental mathematics when your science doesn't make the cut is absolute dogmatic thinking. "Math disproved my theory... MATH MUST BE WRONG!" Seriously.
Seriously, you never know when some previous programmed made a "duplicate" function to do something bizarre, like force a particular initialization order of static-class-member variables between translation units. Sometimes deleting pointless code can do... terrible things. Just be careful, test your changes, etc.
Noise helps pedestrians be aware of that two-ton piece of metal and plastic hurdling down the road. If a vehicle is too silent, it increases the risk of pedestrian-vehicle accidents. Noise is good, and we may as well may it something we're familiar with.
http://www.psmag.com/navigatio...
This is a well known practice in advertising companies. Targeting advertising that's too accurate is creepy, so they filter in junk content so you don't feel uncomfortable. Here's an interesting article about the practice: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
Science is never settled, you clod.
We all know after any wrong doing, a person must offer up at least three goats to the Social Justice Warrior spirits in order to quench their bloodlust.
Better to have robots fight than people. Also once we have a lot of machine control APIs it won't be hard to make killer robots. I can make a paintball gun that shoots everyone but myself using a computer, a couple of high powered servos, a linear actuator, two cameras, and IBM's machine vision API. The fundamental technology just needs to be repurposed, so you're never going to stop the threat of killer machines.
Well, I will admit my latest experience loading Ubuntu on a VM has been a pain in the rump. VirtualBox couldn't get the resolution right, but connected to the Internet fine, Hyper-V got the resolution right but couldn't get the Internet to work. Pft.
I owned an iPad 2 since its launch, about three months ago someone broke into my house and stole it (among other things.) I decided it was time to go shopping, and finally settled on a first generation Surface Pro.
After using it for three months, I can say I prefer it over my laptop *and* my iPad. When I want to develop software, I switch to the desktop and plug in an external monitor (which means I get a second 10-inch screen to load documentation or whatever.) When I want to browse casually, I just unplug it from the extra monitor and go mobile. I don't like the screen aspect ratio (too tall and skinny in portrait) and the battery life needs work. It's also a bit heavy, and the app store isn't as rich.
Still, it has been incredibly nice to have access to my desktop and tablet all in one package. As a desktop, it's actually pretty solid. I don't do heavy media editing (most of my software development involves financial accounts) so it hasn't so much as hiccuped with what I've thrown at it. Now, I don't feel like the Surface Pro is better than an iPad as a tablet, though it's a solid desktop and a decent tablet. Still, having my desktop in such a small form factor has been a dream.
It feels like the natural progression if technology. When someone gets the hybrid-OS to work right, I could see desktops, laptops, phones, and tablets all becoming the same product in a way.
Lets not mince words; These "activists" want the man fired over his private political views. That's what this is about: They want heads to roll, they want someone to lose their job over a private donation. That is hateful bologna. It is sick and wrong to try to get someone fired over something like that.
If a company axed a low level employee for donating to a pro-gay campaign, people would crap a collective brick at the prospect of firing an employee over their private political actions. This isn't about criticizing someone for their views, this is about actively trying to get someone fired over their private, away-from-work political actions. That's wrong, and hateful. We try to ruin people's lives over a bad political choice or donation, we reason with them intelligently and kindly, with love and care. This whole "death to those who oppose pro-gay-legislation" is warped and wrong. Even gays I know are fed up with how hateful the pro-gay movement has become. Back, the hell, OFF. Your hate and cruelty is not making things better for gays.
Classical information, anonymous moron. You can't send something between two points on Minkowski Space along a geodesic that's undefined. Now go Google what I just said because it's pretty clear which of us has actually studied modern physics.
But the conspiring forces can't know what the quasars are sending off! That's the point. Nothing is capable of containing information pertaining to what the quasars have sent, because it's impossible to have made a round trip to find out ahead of time. Therefore, even if the forces can influence the scientist's choice of quasar, the mysterious force still has no idea which quasar will say what, so it can't rig the experiment.
As an analogy, imagine there are three settings: A, B, and C. The mysterious force wants to rig the experiment by forcing the scientist to select setting B. The scientist, to get around this, allows three quasars to select a setting. One of the quasars will pick A, one B, and one will select C. The scientist will then pick one of the quasars to set the settings. The mysterious force can choose which quasar the scientist will pick, but the mysterious force doesn't know which quasar will send which setting, therefore it can't force the scientist to pick B.
Because there cannot be casual information communication between a star of that distance and something on the Earth. In otherwords, there cannot be conspiracy between two things which are physically incapable of communication.