If nanoscale tech is available to universities now, what have organisations like DARPA been doing with it?
Probably giving out the grants to academia to research it. DARPA conduct no research themselves.
How do we ensure that the rights of all intelligences are protected from exploitation?
Take this shit back to LessWrong, where you and your fellow pseudointellectuals can circlejerk about ivory tower garbage like this. Or at the very least, try to keep it out of meaningful articles like this one, which represent an actual advancement; it doesn't need to be polluted with Raymond Kurzweil level crap.
Light only travels about 200000km/s in fiber optic cable, which means 5.5ms to travel that distance. With routing delays and stuff, it's probably about 7ms away.
Judging from your post, I can predict all your answers: excuse, excuse, excuse.
Whatever Obama does? Excuse it. Cry persecution, explain it away, doesn't matter as long as it shifts the blame away from him.
If he breaks one of his promises, claim that he'd be blamed if he didn't.
If his federal bureaucracy does something stupid, claim that he isn't responsible for it.
If he violates one of his principles, claim that he had a really good reason (usually that reason being to score political points with the Republicans who are going to oppose him anyway).
Christ, why don't you just go fucking suck his dick already you worthless sycophant. Go back to Huffington Post.
Actually, SCOTUS says that there doesn't even need to be nudity for it to be pornography, it only needs to be suggestive.
http://openjurist.org/32/f3d/733
[...blah blah blah...]We hold that the federal child pornography statute, on its face, contains no nudity or discernibility requirement, that non-nude visual depictions, such as the ones contained in this record, can qualify as lascivious exhibitions, and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad.[...]
So pack the jury with radicals and get that uncovered face considered obscene and you've got a conviction! Or, considering that they don't see the images in question, do you even have to do that?
*.onion sites do not work that way. They are hosted within the Tor network itself, and should never see an exit node. The only thing the server communicates with is localhost, on a port that Tor runs on. They are designed to protect the identity of the server operator, but are also useful in that they can get around almost any NAT bullshit going on. Anyway, the FBI would have to be actively running those servers that were serving child porn, so they don't get a pass with that excuse.
They had control of the servers since late July (citation: the summary, try reading it). They started serving malware in August.
What calender are you using during which August comes before July? Or did I miss the announcement that we'd have a dozen or so extra leapdays this year?
And now they can serve gigabytes of child porn to pedophiles, then serve malware to practically everyone who uses Tor, pedo or not, and even stupid fascists who love to ramble on about justice and other shit to justify practically everything will still defend them.
Maybe next they can sell crack too schoolchildren in an attempt to find the crackheads who steal it from them.
And then she ends up in a Russian airport for a few weeks while waiting on Putin to declare she can stay on a whim. A few months later, some big war scare will divert attention and nothing will change.
This man has read `Logic for Dummies'; please do not disillusion him with things beyond his understanding before he has a chance to shout `correlation does not equal causation' about this.
Maybe that would be better. As it is, Israel offers absolutely nothing to this ``alliance'' other than a dumping ground for money that we apparently don't need and technology that needs to be sold to China. No one asks what, say, Alabama brings to the Union; they simply are. If we annex Israel then we'll actually have a reason to care about them.
He brought up Ayn Rand because you disagree with him, and that automatically makes you an exclusionary, oppressive 1%er, which is the total opposite of him, who is kind and never tells mean jokes or targets certain groups and loves everyone. Except you.
But there were bystanders around who had called the police. They very well could have stepped in if the fight got out of hand.
OH REALLY? Willing to bet your life on the kindness and willingness of strangers, especially when they don't know who is in the right?
Reasonable enough to be scared? Definitely.
Reasonable enough to kill them. No.
You consider the fear that you may be killed reasonable enough to be scared, but not reasonable enough to defend yourself with the only weapon you have? I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this: our views on self defense are clearly irreconcilable.
But even if those didn't exist, you cannot reasonably compare a controlled fight on a special stage with doctors and judges standing around to stop the fight if it gets out of hand with a street brawl on concrete and no one there.
I don't think it's a reasonable fear but reasonable people panic all the time.
A stranger is on top of you, bashing your head on the ground with no sign of stopping. You don't think that it's a reasonable fear that you're going to lose your life?
stand your ground laws, carry/ conceal laws: they have to go
I completely agree. Do you know how hard it is to make a living as a mugger when you have to worry about people fighting back? And the damn women, they carry guns in their purses these days. Back in the day, you could put a knife to her throat, drag her in an alley and rape her, no questions asked. Now you're constantly worried about some bitch thinking she's the Kill Bill chick and wants to show some resistance. Since when is it worth my life to stop robbery or rape? Am I not a person too?
And really, especially with the other people around Zimmerman wasn't in realistic danger of being killed due to the ground pounding.
Well you definitely flunked out of medical school. And even if he wasn't, permanent brain damage is reason enough. And even if that wasn't, then you still cannot say that a reasonable person would not fear for their life in that situation.
Martin was deserving of some community service and some counselling. He didn't deserve to die.
Perhaps not, but that's a risk you always take when you kick someone's ass with a sidewalk.
Slashdot Mirror
A microwave network between DC, Chicago, and NY? Well... It's possible I guess....
If nanoscale tech is available to universities now, what have organisations like DARPA been doing with it?
Probably giving out the grants to academia to research it. DARPA conduct no research themselves.
How do we ensure that the rights of all intelligences are protected from exploitation?
Take this shit back to LessWrong, where you and your fellow pseudointellectuals can circlejerk about ivory tower garbage like this. Or at the very least, try to keep it out of meaningful articles like this one, which represent an actual advancement; it doesn't need to be polluted with Raymond Kurzweil level crap.
Light only travels about 200000km/s in fiber optic cable, which means 5.5ms to travel that distance. With routing delays and stuff, it's probably about 7ms away.
Judging from your post, I can predict all your answers: excuse, excuse, excuse.
Whatever Obama does? Excuse it. Cry persecution, explain it away, doesn't matter as long as it shifts the blame away from him.
If he breaks one of his promises, claim that he'd be blamed if he didn't.
If his federal bureaucracy does something stupid, claim that he isn't responsible for it.
If he violates one of his principles, claim that he had a really good reason (usually that reason being to score political points with the Republicans who are going to oppose him anyway).
Christ, why don't you just go fucking suck his dick already you worthless sycophant. Go back to Huffington Post.
https://www.google.com/search?q=teenage+sexting+case
http://openjurist.org/32/f3d/733
[...blah blah blah...]We hold that the federal child pornography statute, on its face, contains no nudity or discernibility requirement, that non-nude visual depictions, such as the ones contained in this record, can qualify as lascivious exhibitions, and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad.[...]
So pack the jury with radicals and get that uncovered face considered obscene and you've got a conviction! Or, considering that they don't see the images in question, do you even have to do that?
Sure, why not?! I burn copies of Demonphobia and Maiden Rape Assault: Violent Semen Inferno to CDs and give them out to trick-or-treaters on Halloween.
*.onion sites do not work that way. They are hosted within the Tor network itself, and should never see an exit node. The only thing the server communicates with is localhost, on a port that Tor runs on. They are designed to protect the identity of the server operator, but are also useful in that they can get around almost any NAT bullshit going on. Anyway, the FBI would have to be actively running those servers that were serving child porn, so they don't get a pass with that excuse.
They had control of the servers since late July (citation: the summary, try reading it). They started serving malware in August.
What calender are you using during which August comes before July? Or did I miss the announcement that we'd have a dozen or so extra leapdays this year?
And now they can serve gigabytes of child porn to pedophiles, then serve malware to practically everyone who uses Tor, pedo or not, and even stupid fascists who love to ramble on about justice and other shit to justify practically everything will still defend them.
Maybe next they can sell crack too schoolchildren in an attempt to find the crackheads who steal it from them.
And then she ends up in a Russian airport for a few weeks while waiting on Putin to declare she can stay on a whim. A few months later, some big war scare will divert attention and nothing will change.
This man has read `Logic for Dummies'; please do not disillusion him with things beyond his understanding before he has a chance to shout `correlation does not equal causation' about this.
None of those other countries suck us dry, make us look bad on the world stage for backing them, or have a huge lobby to influence our government.
Maybe that would be better. As it is, Israel offers absolutely nothing to this ``alliance'' other than a dumping ground for money that we apparently don't need and technology that needs to be sold to China. No one asks what, say, Alabama brings to the Union; they simply are. If we annex Israel then we'll actually have a reason to care about them.
Fuck off you disgusting, objectifying rapist. Why do you hate womyn?
That's because you're a privileged white male who can't empathize with the plight of womyn. Humynity will not advance until men like you die off.
Check you're privilege!
When are you going to stop defending the patriarchy and check your privilege?
There's a video in the article you stupid fuck, but you'd better not objectify her or I'll hunt you down and make you check your pedophile privilege.
That's rape, pure and simple. All men should be castrated.
Check your privilege.
He brought up Ayn Rand because you disagree with him, and that automatically makes you an exclusionary, oppressive 1%er, which is the total opposite of him, who is kind and never tells mean jokes or targets certain groups and loves everyone. Except you.
Check your privilege.
I wish I could get menthol weed. I mean, I'm sure I could make it, but....
But there were bystanders around who had called the police. They very well could have stepped in if the fight got out of hand.
OH REALLY? Willing to bet your life on the kindness and willingness of strangers, especially when they don't know who is in the right?
Reasonable enough to be scared? Definitely. Reasonable enough to kill them. No.
You consider the fear that you may be killed reasonable enough to be scared, but not reasonable enough to defend yourself with the only weapon you have? I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this: our views on self defense are clearly irreconcilable.
But even if those didn't exist, you cannot reasonably compare a controlled fight on a special stage with doctors and judges standing around to stop the fight if it gets out of hand with a street brawl on concrete and no one there.
I don't think it's a reasonable fear but reasonable people panic all the time.
A stranger is on top of you, bashing your head on the ground with no sign of stopping. You don't think that it's a reasonable fear that you're going to lose your life?
stand your ground laws, carry/ conceal laws: they have to go
I completely agree. Do you know how hard it is to make a living as a mugger when you have to worry about people fighting back? And the damn women, they carry guns in their purses these days. Back in the day, you could put a knife to her throat, drag her in an alley and rape her, no questions asked. Now you're constantly worried about some bitch thinking she's the Kill Bill chick and wants to show some resistance. Since when is it worth my life to stop robbery or rape? Am I not a person too?
And really, especially with the other people around Zimmerman wasn't in realistic danger of being killed due to the ground pounding.
Well you definitely flunked out of medical school. And even if he wasn't, permanent brain damage is reason enough. And even if that wasn't, then you still cannot say that a reasonable person would not fear for their life in that situation.
Martin was deserving of some community service and some counselling. He didn't deserve to die.
Perhaps not, but that's a risk you always take when you kick someone's ass with a sidewalk.