One of the analogies I've seen at a speech on the subject went something like, "A computer can detect an object in the roadway, but it can't yet tell if it's a paper bag that can be safely run over or a rock that's apt to damage the car."
This was a few years ago, so I don't know if it's still true or not, but it does demonstrate the programming challenge in processing something exceedingly simple that even the most inexperienced human driver would be able.
But the computer will do the sensible thing and reduce speed, try to avoid the obstacle, be it a paper bag or a rock. One novel modality of violent-neighborhoods robberies has been "fill oranges or other fruit with nails and let them on the road; unaware drivers don't make any effort to avoid fruits on the road, get stuck with one or more flat tires, profit".
Another thing to think about is: the computer was not on in three of the four cases; yes, computers can be pretty stupid when they are not working.:D
The only problem is: they are already doing it. Without "our permission". And nobody is doing anything concrete to stop them. And it's possible that there *isn't* anything concrete that can be done to stop them on their tracks (although we can diminish their momentum with the judicious applying of cryptography and security conscience)...
Does anyone else see the ridicule of this attempt? People on the banned countries that really want to continue their courses will use proxies and other technological measures to bypass it?
Anyway, TNW's article reveals some read comprehension error (on everyone's part?); according to Ramaswamy's email, “We are working in the payments team to figure out how to incorporate bitcoin into our plans” but TNW interprets this as "it would suggest Google was getting ready to support the virtual currency". NO. It suggests that Google is thinking about how it could possibly do that.
Assuming you are right, and THEY exist:
As long as none of us peek behind the curtain, we'll never be capable of doing that.
Even after we remove the puppetmasters, I am fairly certain new, improved puppetmasters will show up.
(obviously, if you are wrong and there is no THEM, changing puppets does change things)
(or at least create the conditions for changing things)
The truth, IMNSHO, is that the will to get to power usually generates power, and no people have more will to have power over others than psychopats/sociopaths, and so those naturally drawn to power. Non-empathically-challenged people have to put safeguards in the social fabric and system just to be protected from the empathically-challenged people that will undoubtedly rise to power.
you can just slip into a coma for a couple of years; hell, if you live outside your country for a year -- and make a serious effort to acclimate in the new country, instead of tuning in your equivalent to Rede Globo via internet and cable -- you can seriously miss some pop culture icons.
Cash, in US currency, is accessible just for the 4% of the world population that lives in the US.
Bitcoins/other altcoins can be traded by people in countries that restrict trade, and I mean MORE than the US.:D
Why can't Wikileaks leave your donation in the your-donation-bitcoin-address and then just use it from there to pay for whatever they need to pay?
They can track the total amount they have without having to consolidate accounts (as you said, it's transparent, so, they only have to sum it all). They know which bitcoin addresses are theirs, you know just one of their addresses. If I was a merchant in less than legal artifacts or substances that's what I would do: one address per transaction.
Last time a guy said that he had the right to search my bag, I said "I am a police officer, and I am off-duty. There is no law giving you the right to search my bag. I do, altough, have a S&W.38 police special in my bag and if I unzip my bag, I _will_ take it off and shoot you three times in the chest, and I'll write in my report that you tried to rob my gun; do you want to try?" answer: "no, sir, have a nice movie".
Slashdot Mirror
Xkcd called it.
Computers are still too stupid.
One of the analogies I've seen at a speech on the subject went something like, "A computer can detect an object in the roadway, but it can't yet tell if it's a paper bag that can be safely run over or a rock that's apt to damage the car."
This was a few years ago, so I don't know if it's still true or not, but it does demonstrate the programming challenge in processing something exceedingly simple that even the most inexperienced human driver would be able.
But the computer will do the sensible thing and reduce speed, try to avoid the obstacle, be it a paper bag or a rock. One novel modality of violent-neighborhoods robberies has been "fill oranges or other fruit with nails and let them on the road; unaware drivers don't make any effort to avoid fruits on the road, get stuck with one or more flat tires, profit".
Another thing to think about is: the computer was not on in three of the four cases; yes, computers can be pretty stupid when they are not working. :D
NON-Self-driving cars need to be banned. There, I fixed it for you. :D
The only problem is: they are already doing it. Without "our permission". And nobody is doing anything concrete to stop them. And it's possible that there *isn't* anything concrete that can be done to stop them on their tracks (although we can diminish their momentum with the judicious applying of cryptography and security conscience)...
Kenya's official languages are English and Swahili.
Like zero?
Does anyone else see the ridicule of this attempt? People on the banned countries that really want to continue their courses will use proxies and other technological measures to bypass it?
Is this evidence of time travel? ;)
Anyway, TNW's article reveals some read comprehension error (on everyone's part?); according to Ramaswamy's email, “We are working in the payments team to figure out how to incorporate bitcoin into our plans” but TNW interprets this as "it would suggest Google was getting ready to support the virtual currency". NO. It suggests that Google is thinking about how it could possibly do that.
Assuming you are right, and THEY exist: As long as none of us peek behind the curtain, we'll never be capable of doing that. Even after we remove the puppetmasters, I am fairly certain new, improved puppetmasters will show up. (obviously, if you are wrong and there is no THEM, changing puppets does change things) (or at least create the conditions for changing things) The truth, IMNSHO, is that the will to get to power usually generates power, and no people have more will to have power over others than psychopats/sociopaths, and so those naturally drawn to power. Non-empathically-challenged people have to put safeguards in the social fabric and system just to be protected from the empathically-challenged people that will undoubtedly rise to power.
Even so, 20M in 2000 (6G pop) is 0.3% ... 1.2G in 2014 (7.1G pop) is 16.9%.
Still an enormous difference...
AOL was the *USofAn* internet... (maybe half of it, really)
Maybe two of my 200 fbfriends have sock puppet accounts. Unless you relate to a lot of strange people on fb, I think you are an exception to the rule.
AOL at its peak had a million users? five million? 0.1% of the world population? Compare to the 15% that FB has...
No, because politicians and diapers ought to be changed frequently, and for the same reasons.
You got it the wrong way around.
Actually, it's more probable that your bank created them, with the blessing from the government.
You're not a cancer, a cancer is a famous soccer player with 15 children, all rapidly procreating.
AFAICR parrot is SSA, no?
s/open source/no/ TIFIFY
Sonic screwdrivers! :D
you can just slip into a coma for a couple of years; hell, if you live outside your country for a year -- and make a serious effort to acclimate in the new country, instead of tuning in your equivalent to Rede Globo via internet and cable -- you can seriously miss some pop culture icons.
Cash, in US currency, is accessible just for the 4% of the world population that lives in the US. Bitcoins/other altcoins can be traded by people in countries that restrict trade, and I mean MORE than the US. :D
Why can't Wikileaks leave your donation in the your-donation-bitcoin-address and then just use it from there to pay for whatever they need to pay? They can track the total amount they have without having to consolidate accounts (as you said, it's transparent, so, they only have to sum it all). They know which bitcoin addresses are theirs, you know just one of their addresses. If I was a merchant in less than legal artifacts or substances that's what I would do: one address per transaction.
Last time a guy said that he had the right to search my bag, I said "I am a police officer, and I am off-duty. There is no law giving you the right to search my bag. I do, altough, have a S&W .38 police special in my bag and if I unzip my bag, I _will_ take it off and shoot you three times in the chest, and I'll write in my report that you tried to rob my gun; do you want to try?" answer: "no, sir, have a nice movie".