Yeah thats the Hayflick limit which is designed to stop that.
Theres actually a damn good reason why cells are designed to stop reproducing after a certain limit. In fact one of cancers strategies is to artificially prevent telemere shortening to try and circumvent the hayflick limit.
Yep, now imagine that combined with entangled nanobots connecting themselves to neurons. The possibilities really become endless, and space travel becomes simple, and death loses it's sting. If it works:/.
wut? "Entangled nanobots connecting themselves to neurons"
What the fuck is an "entangled nanobot". Where talking about photons here, not goddamn miniature optimus primes.
Ubisoft sold keys ad different prices. Some of the "cheap" keys were activated in "expensive" areas. Rather than identifying the resellers and shutting them down (though they may have done nothing wrong), Ubisoft identified the keys, and revoked them.
Note, Ubisoft made a profit selling these keys to authorized distributors, and the users paid for a (at the time) valid key. But Ubisoft thinks they could have extracted greater profit with a different sales plan, so they revoked them all to try again. Too many "save, restart" games played by Ubisoft.
I hope they didn't try this stunt on Australian customers. We have "parallel importation" legislation forbidding retailers from trying to prevent people monopolizing sales channels againt people who import cheaper from overseas. Back in the day, the ACCC actually forced retailers to stop supplying DVD players that where not multiregion, although the bloody conservatives put a stop to THOSE shenanigans. Hell back then the ACCC even sued Sony for going after mod-chippers.
Same shit happened to progressive orgs under Bush. I'd be fairly certain its some A type authoritarian in the IRS "doing his part" for whoevers in charge at that moment of time.
I mean shit, look at the whole Acorn frame-up. Organization that got torn to pieces after it reported two of its own employees for vote registration irregularities , so bloody fox news doctors a bunch of footage to make it look like they are running some sort of prostitution scam, the IRS freaks out pulls their tax exempt status and then congress pulls their funding, despite the fact the organization had never been shown to have engaged in anything it was accused of. Moral of the story, don't annoy the government or the government will make you pay.
probably because Zoe Quinn supposedly unfairly profited from the corruption
No she didn't. Nobody has been able to point an instance of this actually happening. She had an affair with a journalist who didn't review anything she did. Thats it. A pissed off ex boyfriend posts that his girlfriend had an affair (It happens) and uh, for some reason that nobody can quite explain this is "corruption and something that people who don't know her are supposted to be angry about FOR SOME REASON.
Slashdot has been fairly in the bag for the SJWs over the whole #gamergate thing, but this is a bit much. Really, we need be a advertizing platform for pet projects of the SJW crowd now? A "gender equality in tech" story 3 days a week wasn't enough? WTF happened to Slashdot? Broad political clickbait was a bit understandable but this is starting to look like a Gawker site.
We miss you Taco, but it's becoming clear why you left.
This isn't about SJWs its about online harassment. Seriously go look up/baphomet/ on 8chan and see whats going on (And yes I realise bap is not gamergate, but there sure is a lot of crossover in targets). People have been killed because of swatting.
Fighting back against peoples lives being fucked up and even ended by chan dwelling bullies isn't being an SJW, its called being an adult.
Can they just unilaterally pick and choose which laws(*) they will prosecute?
Thats how the law has always worked. Don't blame Obama, blame the founding fathers. (Not that they'll hear, being dead and all that)
Similarly, Obama told Holder awhile back [google.com] not to pursue "Defense of marriage" cases. That's fine too, the law should never have been passed and should have been dumped long ago.
Well within his legal rights, as envisioned by the founding fathers.
Has anyone noticed that this was done by the executive branch all on its own, with no oversight?
The whitehouse *IS* the oversight, as envisioned.
I'm troubled by this because everyone accepts the outcome because the results are so good. The ends justify the means in these cases, it's so good to get these laws off the books that we don't notice *how* they got repealed.
Why be troubled. The system is working as it was designed. Its not like Obama invented this, its how its been done since independence.
To be specific, in the future we will see the executive branch gutting laws more often, and if people complain they will point to these good results and say "it's OK for us to do this now because no one complained when we did it previously".
Why do you say that? Obama has done nothing here that every president before him hasn't done.
Back when I was a late teenager , the college I went to had semi regular bomb threats whenever exams or whatever where on. They'd have to evacuate the place so we'd all get the afternoon off. Eventually they caught the kid when he went into the administration office to borrow the phone to make the threat. Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Plot device, perhaps, but if you've read the entire "robot" series of novels, you'll see that it was used to provide a unique "angle" from which to tackle some classical problems of ethics. As a practical matter, I rather doubt that such a set of such laws, even if they were logically sound, could be reliably built into a machine such that no contrivance, hardware or software, could be used to circumvent them.
I think part of the problem is , they fit into a logic/proof solving tradition of AI but not so much into a connectionist/neural-net model.
The problem is, I honestly suspect once neural nets get complex enough and self-organizing enough they can tackle human-style intelligence, we're really not going to have a lot of insight into how they work anymore. Too hard, too complex. How do you build those hard limits into a machine that can redesign itself and that we don't fully understand.
At best we could create an "instinct" to follow them. But what we know from our own intelligence is that instincts can be pretty muteable things (Ie we have a powerful instinct not to die, but make a man miserable enough and he'll hurl himself off a cliff)
We need to tread quite carefully, and make sure when we do create intellects as brilliant as our owns, that those intellects will want to be on our sides. Its almost like the reverse of theology. In Theology thinkers asked "What must we do to be ethical servants of the creator?". Now the tables are turned and WE are the creators, and we might need to ask the opposite, "What must we do to be an ethical creator to our creations".
Because if we don't, we're inviting ragnarok on ourselves.
Yep. I still remember being a young teenager and kid in the 80s and how prior to Gorbachev (That guy really should be considered a hero to *everyone*, Russians and Americans. Forget Reagan, it was Gorbachev that ended the cold war.) there was a genuine feeling that we where all gunna die.
I still remember the nuns at school (catholic primary school) making us kids pray that reagan and whoever it was at the time (Gromeyko? Andropov?) wouldnt hit the button and nuke us all after a bunch of sabre rattling over Afghanistan. She literally told us about the whole drop to the floor, roll into the corner and stuff.
I never expected to make 20. And here I am at 40. Its a whole different world.
You misunderstand how libertarians use the word free. To them, freedom means being able to do whatever they want whenever they want in any way they want without any form of responsibility to anyone or anything. In other words they mean anarchy, and they're deluded enough to think they're all Ayn Randian supermen who will rise to the top in such an environment. Holding a rational debate or explaining anything to someone like that is a waste of time, it's like trying to convert the pope to Buddhism.
Hey hey, don't go blaming anarchists for the libertarians and the ancaps. Theres a damn good reason why anarchists are anti-capitalist and have sworn by the motto of "Property IS theft" since Proudhon first said it in the 1800s.
For all its faults, I still rue the fact the Shuttle program was canned. They where great little spacecraft, and really should have just been upgraded rather than canned.
Yeah, it's always worth keeping in mind that the universe wasn't designed to be elegant... It wasn't designed at all. It just is.
I'm actually often surprised at how elegant physics can be in spite of this.
True, but a universe that arises from a simple mechanism makes more intuitive sense than a giant hairball of complexity that exists for some reason nobody can quite work out.
Disk space ain't that cheap, especially if you install the applications on a SSD. Furthermore, a large application is using literally gigabytes of shared DLLs which would otherwise be saved separately. Disk space usage would astronomically increase.
Its actually how the Macs have been doing it since forever. You know those.app files macs use? They are actually directories with a little XML file telling the OS how to run them. Its traditional to include the.dylink and.so files (the macs version of.dll) inside that.app directory under/Contents/Resources. This way you NEVER get.dll hell.
Well until you install two different package managers on top of each other and all your unix command line apps start freaking out.
Blame early osx unix devs who tried to turn OSX into linux for that mess.
And if you think science has nothing to do with politics, you really haven't been paying attention. Scientists are no more or less idealists than anyone else, no more or less corruptible, and in the absence of data that people admit falsifies their hypotheses, can spin their wheels for a generation agreeing with one another and accomplishing nothing (see: string theory).
Yes, but you seem to be suggesting a conspiracy dating back to the start of climate science in the 1800s which if true involves millions of scientists constantly lying, a complete rewrite of some very fundamental physics, an entire world of weather stations and satelites being deliberately made wrong, AND a mechanism to make the world seem like its following physics despite it not following physics. All for reasons nobody can work out, and all being done so well no one ever discovering it, well until a plucky band of conspiracy theorists, anti-science activists and oil industry lobbyists blew the top off the whole thing.
Its a bit on the David Icke side of crazy, if you ask me.
Hypothetically, what do you suggest for when the experts are untrustworthy? Or is this impossible in your worldview?
Academia has processes to deal with this, as other experts will issue studies showing faults in the previous ones.
One thing to note though, without qualifications in the field you are almost guaranteed to be unable to determine if a particular scientist is trustworthy.
Fortunately in climate science however there IS a mechanism, which is the IPCC reports which use extremely wide scale peer review to synthesize findings from vast quantities of research.
Here are things that are not reliable: * Blogs, notably by untrained conservative commentations or known crackpots. * Conservative thinktanks * Politicians. * Aristocrats. * Pretend Aristocrats (like "lord" monckton)
"As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap. "
See that bit where you write "I think...". Stop thinking , if you don't have a qualification in climate science, and go and look up what the experts say because on a fundamental levels your opinions are no guide at all to anything useful if you don't have the training to have a reliable opinion on the matter.
And if thats hard to understand, google "Dunning Krueger" for more explaination.
Until then, sorry dude, but its a reasonable reply he gave. This really has nothing to do with left or right wing politics, since science doesn't work that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont think you'll find that many ESR fan in python world either bro. The dudes a bad smell wherever he turns up.
Yeah thats the Hayflick limit which is designed to stop that.
Theres actually a damn good reason why cells are designed to stop reproducing after a certain limit. In fact one of cancers strategies is to artificially prevent telemere shortening to try and circumvent the hayflick limit.
wut? "Entangled nanobots connecting themselves to neurons"
What the fuck is an "entangled nanobot". Where talking about photons here, not goddamn miniature optimus primes.
I hope they didn't try this stunt on Australian customers. We have "parallel importation" legislation forbidding retailers from trying to prevent people monopolizing sales channels againt people who import cheaper from overseas. Back in the day, the ACCC actually forced retailers to stop supplying DVD players that where not multiregion, although the bloody conservatives put a stop to THOSE shenanigans. Hell back then the ACCC even sued Sony for going after mod-chippers.
Same shit happened to progressive orgs under Bush. I'd be fairly certain its some A type authoritarian in the IRS "doing his part" for whoevers in charge at that moment of time.
I mean shit, look at the whole Acorn frame-up. Organization that got torn to pieces after it reported two of its own employees for vote registration irregularities , so bloody fox news doctors a bunch of footage to make it look like they are running some sort of prostitution scam, the IRS freaks out pulls their tax exempt status and then congress pulls their funding, despite the fact the organization had never been shown to have engaged in anything it was accused of. Moral of the story, don't annoy the government or the government will make you pay.
No she didn't. Nobody has been able to point an instance of this actually happening. She had an affair with a journalist who didn't review anything she did. Thats it. A pissed off ex boyfriend posts that his girlfriend had an affair (It happens) and uh, for some reason that nobody can quite explain this is "corruption and something that people who don't know her are supposted to be angry about FOR SOME REASON.
Yes, that is in fact a common outcome of being doxxed. Whats your point here?
This isn't about SJWs its about online harassment. Seriously go look up /baphomet/ on 8chan and see whats going on (And yes I realise bap is not gamergate, but there sure is a lot of crossover in targets). People have been killed because of swatting.
Fighting back against peoples lives being fucked up and even ended by chan dwelling bullies isn't being an SJW, its called being an adult.
Thats how the law has always worked. Don't blame Obama, blame the founding fathers. (Not that they'll hear, being dead and all that)
Well within his legal rights, as envisioned by the founding fathers.
The whitehouse *IS* the oversight, as envisioned.
Why be troubled. The system is working as it was designed. Its not like Obama invented this, its how its been done since independence.
Why do you say that? Obama has done nothing here that every president before him hasn't done.
Back when I was a late teenager , the college I went to had semi regular bomb threats whenever exams or whatever where on. They'd have to evacuate the place so we'd all get the afternoon off. Eventually they caught the kid when he went into the administration office to borrow the phone to make the threat. Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Cancer versus AIDS. Which to choose. decisions decisions decisions.
I think part of the problem is , they fit into a logic/proof solving tradition of AI but not so much into a connectionist/neural-net model.
The problem is, I honestly suspect once neural nets get complex enough and self-organizing enough they can tackle human-style intelligence, we're really not going to have a lot of insight into how they work anymore. Too hard, too complex. How do you build those hard limits into a machine that can redesign itself and that we don't fully understand.
At best we could create an "instinct" to follow them. But what we know from our own intelligence is that instincts can be pretty muteable things (Ie we have a powerful instinct not to die, but make a man miserable enough and he'll hurl himself off a cliff)
We need to tread quite carefully, and make sure when we do create intellects as brilliant as our owns, that those intellects will want to be on our sides. Its almost like the reverse of theology. In Theology thinkers asked "What must we do to be ethical servants of the creator?". Now the tables are turned and WE are the creators, and we might need to ask the opposite, "What must we do to be an ethical creator to our creations".
Because if we don't, we're inviting ragnarok on ourselves.
Yep. I still remember being a young teenager and kid in the 80s and how prior to Gorbachev (That guy really should be considered a hero to *everyone*, Russians and Americans. Forget Reagan, it was Gorbachev that ended the cold war.) there was a genuine feeling that we where all gunna die.
I still remember the nuns at school (catholic primary school) making us kids pray that reagan and whoever it was at the time (Gromeyko? Andropov?) wouldnt hit the button and nuke us all after a bunch of sabre rattling over Afghanistan. She literally told us about the whole drop to the floor, roll into the corner and stuff.
I never expected to make 20. And here I am at 40. Its a whole different world.
They do when a couple of multi billion dollar multinationals with serious US investments come under attack.
Its all about the money.
The website however is total insanity from the mid 1990s.
Frederic Tudor may have invented the ice trade, but Walter White perfected it!
You misunderstand how libertarians use the word free. To them, freedom means being able to do whatever they want whenever they want in any way they want without any form of responsibility to anyone or anything. In other words they mean anarchy, and they're deluded enough to think they're all Ayn Randian supermen who will rise to the top in such an environment. Holding a rational debate or explaining anything to someone like that is a waste of time, it's like trying to convert the pope to Buddhism.
Hey hey, don't go blaming anarchists for the libertarians and the ancaps. Theres a damn good reason why anarchists are anti-capitalist and have sworn by the motto of "Property IS theft" since Proudhon first said it in the 1800s.
For all its faults, I still rue the fact the Shuttle program was canned. They where great little spacecraft, and really should have just been upgraded rather than canned.
Perhaps International Court of Justice? The United States is the only country to ever have been found guilty by the ICJ of sponsoring terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
True, but a universe that arises from a simple mechanism makes more intuitive sense than a giant hairball of complexity that exists for some reason nobody can quite work out.
Its actually how the Macs have been doing it since forever. You know those .app files macs use? They are actually directories with a little XML file telling the OS how to run them. Its traditional to include the .dylink and .so files (the macs version of .dll) inside that .app directory under /Contents/Resources. This way you NEVER get .dll hell.
Well until you install two different package managers on top of each other and all your unix command line apps start freaking out.
Blame early osx unix devs who tried to turn OSX into linux for that mess.
Yes, but you seem to be suggesting a conspiracy dating back to the start of climate science in the 1800s which if true involves millions of scientists constantly lying, a complete rewrite of some very fundamental physics, an entire world of weather stations and satelites being deliberately made wrong, AND a mechanism to make the world seem like its following physics despite it not following physics. All for reasons nobody can work out, and all being done so well no one ever discovering it, well until a plucky band of conspiracy theorists, anti-science activists and oil industry lobbyists blew the top off the whole thing.
Its a bit on the David Icke side of crazy, if you ask me.
Academia has processes to deal with this, as other experts will issue studies showing faults in the previous ones.
One thing to note though, without qualifications in the field you are almost guaranteed to be unable to determine if a particular scientist is trustworthy.
Fortunately in climate science however there IS a mechanism, which is the IPCC reports which use extremely wide scale peer review to synthesize findings from vast quantities of research.
Here are things that are not reliable:
* Blogs, notably by untrained conservative commentations or known crackpots.
* Conservative thinktanks
* Politicians.
* Aristocrats.
* Pretend Aristocrats (like "lord" monckton)
"As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap. "
See that bit where you write "I think...". Stop thinking , if you don't have a qualification in climate science, and go and look up what the experts say because on a fundamental levels your opinions are no guide at all to anything useful if you don't have the training to have a reliable opinion on the matter.
And if thats hard to understand, google "Dunning Krueger" for more explaination.
Until then, sorry dude, but its a reasonable reply he gave. This really has nothing to do with left or right wing politics, since science doesn't work that way.