They've built planes like the Gulfstream G650, 14 passengers and 7500nm range which means that from New York you can reach Tokyo to the west and Dubai to the east non-stop. It won't take you to Australia or South Africa but it's fairly global. A full range trip works out to $200-$250k so it's not for the average person but if you're a multimillionaire flying with an entourage between two local airports - a 14 passenger plane can probably land just about anywhere - then it wasn't as absurdly expensive as I thought. A little out of my budget tho.
When you're watching it's 80% entertainment and gimmicks, 20% actual news and science. If you're arguing about how valuable it is the percentages swap places. Though I suppose after gamifying everything else, I guess museums must keep up with the times.
You're the second person to make this mistake in the thread. "Danielle". Not "Daniel." ie, a woman. Interesting bias. A professor of engineering has to be a man, right?
Well English doesn't have an indeterminate gender, you could use "it" or singular "they" but it sounds awful.
"A person walks into a bar. He orders a drink." - Male "A person walks into a bar. She orders a drink." - Female "A person walks into a bar. It orders a drink." - Lt. Commander Data "A person walks into a bar. They orders a drink." - Gollum "Messa walks into a bar. Messa orders a drink." - Jar Jar
So if you haven't bothered to check because honestly what's between their legs is totally irrelevant to the conversation you'll usually end up talking about them as if they were male.
They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid),
Or if they're very smart, they just get paid up front... Have you any idea how few people actually get "gross"? And gross still usually means gross of distributor revenue, minus exhibition fees, which is to say, after Netflix has taken their cut. Nobody who merely works on a movie gets first-dollar gross.
That's all covered by "work for hire" which is why I put it first, whether it's up front, on delivery, per hour, fixed fee or whatever. You get paid an agreed rate, they get all the rights. Makes a lot of sense too, if you're not in a position to make any creative input or deliver an acting performance that'll affect the audience then it's not your achievement if it's a success or your fault if it bombs.
Which is good, because Netflix adds nothing to the actual value chain for new titles. It's just a subscription Video-on-Demand service, except ON THE INTERNET! (...) I'm just speaking as someone who occasionally gets paid contractual gross in deferred deals. Netflix and VOD pay-through never remotely comes close to market rate for my work. I think a lot of the "streaming" business models are sorta scams, particularly for new filmmakers, they can't come close to generating the revenue theatrical and TV distribution can, and Netflix is sorta bluffing people on wether or not they can actually generate the revenue to sustainably create new original content.
Theatrical distribution is its own thing, but for TV you're arguing both for and against "on the Internet" making a difference. Whatever they broadcast today, they could stream over TCP/IP tomorrow. DVRs has already provided VOD-ish features for broadcast TV. This year HBO will offer a web only service in the US, we've already had something similar here a while in Norway through HBO Nordic. Netflix is in a decent position to be the "online middleman" like Spotify is for music.
Of course they say that Spotify pays too little too but the market has mostly quit buying CDs and digital downloads so what will they do? If people cancel their cable subscriptions and watch what is on Netflix, YouTube and HBO web with a helping of torrents for what's not you either put your content online and get poor margins or you don't and lose out on much of the market. Here in Norway some 88% of households have broadband and 85% of those can stream online video at a reasonable quality with 4+ Mbit.
Remember that it's not just the long tail, it's also the wide tail. For example if I wanted to watch NFL here in Norway, I could get an NFL game pass and watch any game I want live and in HD. On the TV you'll probably not find anything more than the Superbowl, maybe some more obscure sports channel will send it but it's a very limited audience here. Porn has massively embraced it, I'm sure there's an adult channel on most networks but on the web there's absurdly many.
To be honest, my first thought was this: Age of machine + cost of repair vs cost of new machine and found it wasn't worth getting a repairman out here, probably once to figure out what's wrong and once to fix and it wasn't worth the struggle to deliver 70kg to a repair shop and return it afterwards. I almost ordered a new one but then I figured, what the hell I could maybe manage to swap a broken transmission belt so I unscrewed the back lid. Turns out it had just jumped off from years of spinning, didn't even need a replacement part. Simple mechanical devices where a filter is clogged or the machinery needs oil is worth a look. Flaky electronics on the other hand, forget about it. It's mostly one big integrated lump of circuits that either works or it doesn't. And small, cheap or old appliances just aren't worth the effort as fixing cheap plastic or a bad solder might only last a short while longer as where there's one fault there's probably more poor QA.
People used to mend socks because cloth was really expensive and involved a lot of manual processes to make. Today I can get a year's supply from an hour's wages so why bother? Yeah I'm less self-sufficient but let's face it without the grocery store I'd starve so if it comes down to the basics it's not all that essential. In fact mostly useless if the electricity is dead. So if having those skills don't do me much good today and don't do me much good in the post-zombie apocalypse so why would I do it? It'd be a hobby. Nothing wrong with having hobbies, but they're a leisure activity that you do if you feel like it. For me that sounds a lot like maintenance and repair, which I hate in general. I hate housekeeping and I hate changing broken light bulbs just to maintain the status quo. Making broken shit work(ish) sounds like work, not fun.
Is there some straightforward way to give a Windows backup program a different user/priority, so that the backup files it generates can only be accessed/modified by itself? That way a rogue virus or even user stupidity cannot delete or encrypt the backups. It know how to do this with Unix, but my Windows-fu is not as strong.
Create a task in task scheduler and you can say what account to run it as, there are also GUI (shift-rightclick an exe) or CLI (runas command) options. Just make sure that the destination isn't also writable by your regular user. Make sure you have incremental backup and not just a full backup/synchronization though, otherwise you'll just overwrite the good versions with encrypted bad versions, you need to be able to go back in history and get a good version from before you were infected. Of course you are just a local escalation exploit away from that being hosed as well, for real security the only way to delete backups should be from the backup system.
Right, because there aren't other considerations in play. I mean the actors, composers, producers, graphics designers, musicians, etc. involved in the production of a movie all have a uniform contract that discusses world wide steaming over the Internet. It isn't like there is a shitload of legal legwork involved in releasing movies for streaming.
They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid), you don't renegotiate those contracts per country. That would be extremely fooling since the movie is already made, you'd give everyone involved the chance to ask any price they want. The problem at least in the early days was that many movies and series were sold with exclusive distribution rights often down to the national level due to the traditional broadcasting networks. That means Netflix can't go to one company and ask for rights, they have to sub-licenses from many different entities. For newer material this is changing, typically the production company keeps the online streaming rights and only promise to not exercise them while it airs. Of course they still want to gouge Netflix as much as they can, but it's not the same fractured landscape of rights as it used to be.
Yes, it's basically the same kind of encoding as UTF8, except it uses multibyte if it doesn't fit into the basic multilingual plane instead of ASCII. And characters outside the BMP are so ridiculously rare in normal use so if you want your application to behave correctly on UTF32 characters you probably know about it.
We're all flawed but not equally flawed and not necessarily in the ways an employer would object to. If you have two candidates and one has already had a skeleton fall out of their closet and the other hasn't, would you really go with the person who already has proven objectionable behavior? Not that I found your examples very objectionable. And if you don't care but know your customers will, then whether it's public knowledge or not is extremely relevant. I don't think it's possible to do away with social norms, if they steal nude photos of you and send it to all your colleagues it will get weird and awkward. I think you're asking too much of people to pretend like that didn't happen.
Voyager was not designed to go fast, so going 50 times faster is not as hard as it sounds.
I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about. Voyager used the major planets aligning to slingshot out of the solar system at speeds that no practical chemical rocket can reach. This is because to go faster you need to carry more fuel, but this fuel makes it even harder to accelerate causing an exponential relationship. Even just to match Voyager unassisted we need an entirely different kind of unproven technology like fission, fusion, antimatter, ion or solar sail being possible candidates. Going 50 times faster is "they do it on Star Trek" difficult, all we have is loose thought experiments. But hey prove me wrong and you'll have my apologies and more than a few Nobel prizes.
If you try to use very simple, concrete words that can't easily be confused for the purpose of translation then maybe. But for general text with all kinds of irregularities (idioms, euphemisms, allusions, metaphors, jargon, slang, all kinds of word play) translations will still suck bad. The real issue is that you don't know if what the translator was right, even with a very limited vocabulary of your own you can usually make something simple and understandable. With the translator you hopefully have a broad vocabulary and speak grammatically correct, but you've no way of knowing. Reminds me of a girl I once talked to from Quebec, she had taught a visiting guy "pickup lines" in French. Well not really, he tried them at the bar and ended up at the hospital. What are friends for...
But to create a Chinglish-style creole in the future, the lingual export would need to be bidirectional. English speakers would need to be learning Chinese at at least a comparable rate that Chinese speakers are learning English.
The Chinese are big enough to essentially make their own grammar and words, just like US English is similar but not quite the same as UK English. If they start interspersing Chinese words some of them might stick instead of or in addition to the existing word as we read "Chinese English" words and use google. International English is possibly already diverging a bit from the UK/US/AU varieties.
Go to the hippest clubs or most-expensive shopping malls in Shanghai or Hong Kong. You'll see elite Chinese and HK kids speaking English, not Chinese. More often than not, they're speaking English with an English accent too. You don't see elite Western kids in New York or London hanging out and speaking Chinese. (...) The issue isn't population numbers. It's what the global 1% are doing. And they're learning English in increasing numbers.
The elite has often had their own languages, Latin used to be the language of any classic education. French used to be the language of diplomacy. The difference now is that quite ordinary foreigners learn English to become a support desk worker or software developer or work in an airport or the reception of a hotel and so on. Not to mention here in Europe in many large companies English is now the business language, no matter where you are. Sure if we're in a meeting with just locals but if one person doesn't understand English you switch. The casual email might be in the local tongue if you know the recipient, but all code, deliverables and documentation is in English. Or to put it conversely, if you can't work in English you've significantly limited your employment opportunities. The invisible hand of the market is pushing quite well on this one.
I guess i am too old to understand how loose people treat the internet these days. 'I posted my credentials openly on the internet and am now shocked that I have been taken advatage of'... no way! You shared the keys to your kingdom and someone abused it?? Shocking.
He wasn't surprised they were abused. He's surprised what he thought was keys to S3 unlocks the entire kingdom. Like you lose a card for electronic bus tickets and you think the worst they can do is ride the bus for free. Except the card doubles as a "secure ID" and they order thousands of dollars worth of goods from cooperating merchants, which you didn't even know was possible. Sure posting them on Github was ignorant and entirely his fault, but if you try to assess the risk then it's probability * impact and I think he just got a big surprise when it came to impact. I think you're being too hard on him.
It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.
The problem is that I wouldn't want to be the co-occupant, tenant, sleepover guest, new owner, home insurance company, in a different apartment or chained building of someone playing electrician and plumber, if you die in a fire of your own making I don't really care but if you're going to burn down the whole house with me in it then it matters. Every so often we get media examples of people doing home renovation not just in violation of code and regulation but sanity and safety. And the problem is often inside the wall where you don't see it without invasive procedures, are those downlights properly embedded or is it just spotlights in a cut out hole with extension cords behind it? That really happens. The make all these little pitfalls to keep people from even trying. I know what you mean, my dad has been a handyman all his life doing everything himself that he could get away with and if everyone was like him we wouldn't really have a problem. But a lot of people don't have a clue and don't realize it, maybe there could be a "light" certificate but they'd probably think it makes them grandmasters.
No, we couldn't. We don't have the technology right now to build a multi-generational ship. We don't even have the technology right now to send an unmanned probe that would still be powered by the time it got there.
Actually powered may not be that impossible, they're experimenting with Am241 which has a half-life of 432 years, so even after 1000 years it would have ~20% of its initial power production. Do we have electronics that can last that long? Who knows. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977 and is still running, before Intel had even invented the 8086. I'm sure we can do better today if that's our design goal. It seems likely that if it can withstand ~38 years of interstellar radiation that the shielding and error recovery is pretty good already. Obviously with increased distance we'll also need bigger antennas, but Voyager is expected to run out of power in ~10 years before we lose contact and it was a small 722 kg probe, we could easily make it at least ten times bigger. I expect that for the next "grand tour" in 2148 - no, that's not a typo - we'll launch a deep space mission to reach the Oort cloud which would take something like 300-800 years. Not that we're even close to doing interstellar, but it seems like the natural next step unless we've made some other revolutionary breakthroughs.
Let me just blacklist you in AdBlocker and I'll get back to you. Oh and with regards to the topic, well you'll have to wait a whole lot longer for a suitable planet than any old planet. Unless you got terraforming so under control you can build your own planet it's a lot easier to go where you at least get an earth-like rock to start with.
We also have a very good understanding of what "wave-height" means, at least in applied terms: the wave-height at a given point is the probability of finding the particle-like manifestation of the quarticle there.
Quantum mechanics is absurdly weird in more ways I can count, but with regards to having a hidden state and determinism I think I was trying to arrive at the de Broglie-Bohm theory where the universe is in a particular quantum state and there is no more true randomness or free will than in classical physics.
If you look at a typical web page, you have a load of images, a few iframes with ads, scripts (possibly with with multiple web workers). Each one of those really wants to be a separate security domain. You don't want a vulnerability in libpng (something that has happened many times before) to be able to do anything other than break the single image that it's decoding. This kind of fine-grained security is a lot easier if you have the ability to have a load of cheap threads.
Per tab security so visiting myonlinebank.com and evilmalwaresite.com at the same time won't be a problem sure, but honestly I don't care if one image can bork just that image or the whole webpage since they from my perspective is equally untrusted. I request a page from slashdot.org and I don't want it to hose my machine. Slashdot embeds an ad image from their advertising network and it's the same. I suppose you could say that the malicious PNG can now social engineer the whole page or use another exploit in the HTML/Javascript engine to gain even more privileges, but that seems highly theoretical. Particularly since those should be in the same sandbox since you can have bad HTML/Javascript too. I can't imagine the overhead of visiting Google's image search and have it spawn hundreds of security contexts, that seems like a total waste since they're all under Google's control.
I'm with Einstein on this one, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Let's take your basic double slit interference pattern. Either they have some hidden quantum state which means it's not really the exact same thing or the laws of nature are rewritten at a whim for each photon that's far more absurd. Particularly when we can observe the exact same phenomenon on a macro scale in ripple tanks, if we send waves of water against a slit the size of the wave length we get diffraction and if we use double slits we get an interference pattern, all as a function of wave height. We haven't found what the quantum equivalent of wave height is, but it sure seems to work like it exists. Just like we haven't found the force carrier for gravity (unlike electromagnetism: photon, strong force: gluon, weak force: W and Z boson) but obviously there is gravity and presumably something has to carry that force. As for free will, lets just invoke the death penalty on all those who claim their crimes were predetermined. Because then their death sentence is too, right? Put that shit in a philosophy class.
Oh please, there are so many billions of people living wildly different life styles and there's a considerable incidence of cancer all of the world. And we got cases of cancer that are 3000 year old, it's not like it showed up recently. And if you correct for increased lifespan there's no explosion in cancer, we only have a lot more old people whose cell reproduction system has had longer to develop a critical fault. Obesity is a contributing factor to heart problem, there's still normal weight/underweight people with heart problems. I don't know any rational basis to assume the default is almost no cancer and it all must be part of some conspiracy, but apparently the tin foil hatters are modding you up. I guess they can mix the cancer-giving stuff into the chemtrails...
There's nothing subjective about the fact that you could, as some particular time not specified by the summary, exchange those 650,000 bitcoins (not "bit coins" as the summary would have it) for $370m.
No, there was never such a time. When MtGox collapsed there was less than 13 million bitcoins total, most of which is being hoarded. Looking at the exchange trade volume there's maybe $5-10 million dollar daily liquidity. In order to sell out without the market crashing you probably couldn't sell more than 10% of that so it'd take years to cash out. And that's assuming you don't overdo it and spook the herd so they all cash out too.
The one who figures out asteroid mining is going to be the real winner!
The one who could produce an economically and technically viable asteroid mining ship would almost certainly already be a trillionaire from applying his inventions here on earth.
However by posting it on a public board, we implicitly give Slashdot permission to redistribute it. An e-mail I send to the feedback section of a newspaper also comes with the implicit permission to print and redistribute it in the newspaper.
Two different kinds of implicit, one is much weaker than the other. In one case the terms are also implicit, I could have just sent the email to the wrong address. What about editing for size, can they do that though it no longer fully expresses your opinion? It's all up in the air. Boards and feedback forms are usually different, they typically have an explicit agreement that you agree to through:
a) User registration b) Checking a box c) Submitting/uploading content d) Terms of the site
I'm pretty sure that if you don't like the way/. uses your comment they'll claim that you gave the following license (found under "Terms" at bottom of page):
By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to link to, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), adapt, create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform or otherwise use such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed. You hereby grant the Company permission to display your logo, trademarks and company name on the Sites and in press and other public releases or filings. Further, by submitting Content to the Company, you acknowledge that you have the authority to grant such rights to the Company. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF ANY COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS IN ANY CONTENT YOU SUBMIT.
Slashdot Mirror
They've built planes like the Gulfstream G650, 14 passengers and 7500nm range which means that from New York you can reach Tokyo to the west and Dubai to the east non-stop. It won't take you to Australia or South Africa but it's fairly global. A full range trip works out to $200-$250k so it's not for the average person but if you're a multimillionaire flying with an entourage between two local airports - a 14 passenger plane can probably land just about anywhere - then it wasn't as absurdly expensive as I thought. A little out of my budget tho.
When you're watching it's 80% entertainment and gimmicks, 20% actual news and science. If you're arguing about how valuable it is the percentages swap places. Though I suppose after gamifying everything else, I guess museums must keep up with the times.
You're the second person to make this mistake in the thread. "Danielle". Not "Daniel." ie, a woman. Interesting bias. A professor of engineering has to be a man, right?
Well English doesn't have an indeterminate gender, you could use "it" or singular "they" but it sounds awful.
"A person walks into a bar. He orders a drink." - Male
"A person walks into a bar. She orders a drink." - Female
"A person walks into a bar. It orders a drink." - Lt. Commander Data
"A person walks into a bar. They orders a drink." - Gollum
"Messa walks into a bar. Messa orders a drink." - Jar Jar
So if you haven't bothered to check because honestly what's between their legs is totally irrelevant to the conversation you'll usually end up talking about them as if they were male.
They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid),
Or if they're very smart, they just get paid up front... Have you any idea how few people actually get "gross"? And gross still usually means gross of distributor revenue, minus exhibition fees, which is to say, after Netflix has taken their cut. Nobody who merely works on a movie gets first-dollar gross.
That's all covered by "work for hire" which is why I put it first, whether it's up front, on delivery, per hour, fixed fee or whatever. You get paid an agreed rate, they get all the rights. Makes a lot of sense too, if you're not in a position to make any creative input or deliver an acting performance that'll affect the audience then it's not your achievement if it's a success or your fault if it bombs.
Which is good, because Netflix adds nothing to the actual value chain for new titles. It's just a subscription Video-on-Demand service, except ON THE INTERNET! (...) I'm just speaking as someone who occasionally gets paid contractual gross in deferred deals. Netflix and VOD pay-through never remotely comes close to market rate for my work. I think a lot of the "streaming" business models are sorta scams, particularly for new filmmakers, they can't come close to generating the revenue theatrical and TV distribution can, and Netflix is sorta bluffing people on wether or not they can actually generate the revenue to sustainably create new original content.
Theatrical distribution is its own thing, but for TV you're arguing both for and against "on the Internet" making a difference. Whatever they broadcast today, they could stream over TCP/IP tomorrow. DVRs has already provided VOD-ish features for broadcast TV. This year HBO will offer a web only service in the US, we've already had something similar here a while in Norway through HBO Nordic. Netflix is in a decent position to be the "online middleman" like Spotify is for music.
Of course they say that Spotify pays too little too but the market has mostly quit buying CDs and digital downloads so what will they do? If people cancel their cable subscriptions and watch what is on Netflix, YouTube and HBO web with a helping of torrents for what's not you either put your content online and get poor margins or you don't and lose out on much of the market. Here in Norway some 88% of households have broadband and 85% of those can stream online video at a reasonable quality with 4+ Mbit.
Remember that it's not just the long tail, it's also the wide tail. For example if I wanted to watch NFL here in Norway, I could get an NFL game pass and watch any game I want live and in HD. On the TV you'll probably not find anything more than the Superbowl, maybe some more obscure sports channel will send it but it's a very limited audience here. Porn has massively embraced it, I'm sure there's an adult channel on most networks but on the web there's absurdly many.
To be honest, my first thought was this: Age of machine + cost of repair vs cost of new machine and found it wasn't worth getting a repairman out here, probably once to figure out what's wrong and once to fix and it wasn't worth the struggle to deliver 70kg to a repair shop and return it afterwards. I almost ordered a new one but then I figured, what the hell I could maybe manage to swap a broken transmission belt so I unscrewed the back lid. Turns out it had just jumped off from years of spinning, didn't even need a replacement part. Simple mechanical devices where a filter is clogged or the machinery needs oil is worth a look. Flaky electronics on the other hand, forget about it. It's mostly one big integrated lump of circuits that either works or it doesn't. And small, cheap or old appliances just aren't worth the effort as fixing cheap plastic or a bad solder might only last a short while longer as where there's one fault there's probably more poor QA.
People used to mend socks because cloth was really expensive and involved a lot of manual processes to make. Today I can get a year's supply from an hour's wages so why bother? Yeah I'm less self-sufficient but let's face it without the grocery store I'd starve so if it comes down to the basics it's not all that essential. In fact mostly useless if the electricity is dead. So if having those skills don't do me much good today and don't do me much good in the post-zombie apocalypse so why would I do it? It'd be a hobby. Nothing wrong with having hobbies, but they're a leisure activity that you do if you feel like it. For me that sounds a lot like maintenance and repair, which I hate in general. I hate housekeeping and I hate changing broken light bulbs just to maintain the status quo. Making broken shit work(ish) sounds like work, not fun.
Is there some straightforward way to give a Windows backup program a different user/priority, so that the backup files it generates can only be accessed/modified by itself? That way a rogue virus or even user stupidity cannot delete or encrypt the backups. It know how to do this with Unix, but my Windows-fu is not as strong.
Create a task in task scheduler and you can say what account to run it as, there are also GUI (shift-rightclick an exe) or CLI (runas command) options. Just make sure that the destination isn't also writable by your regular user. Make sure you have incremental backup and not just a full backup/synchronization though, otherwise you'll just overwrite the good versions with encrypted bad versions, you need to be able to go back in history and get a good version from before you were infected. Of course you are just a local escalation exploit away from that being hosed as well, for real security the only way to delete backups should be from the backup system.
Right, because there aren't other considerations in play. I mean the actors, composers, producers, graphics designers, musicians, etc. involved in the production of a movie all have a uniform contract that discusses world wide steaming over the Internet. It isn't like there is a shitload of legal legwork involved in releasing movies for streaming.
They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid), you don't renegotiate those contracts per country. That would be extremely fooling since the movie is already made, you'd give everyone involved the chance to ask any price they want. The problem at least in the early days was that many movies and series were sold with exclusive distribution rights often down to the national level due to the traditional broadcasting networks. That means Netflix can't go to one company and ask for rights, they have to sub-licenses from many different entities. For newer material this is changing, typically the production company keeps the online streaming rights and only promise to not exercise them while it airs. Of course they still want to gouge Netflix as much as they can, but it's not the same fractured landscape of rights as it used to be.
Yes, it's basically the same kind of encoding as UTF8, except it uses multibyte if it doesn't fit into the basic multilingual plane instead of ASCII. And characters outside the BMP are so ridiculously rare in normal use so if you want your application to behave correctly on UTF32 characters you probably know about it.
We're all flawed but not equally flawed and not necessarily in the ways an employer would object to. If you have two candidates and one has already had a skeleton fall out of their closet and the other hasn't, would you really go with the person who already has proven objectionable behavior? Not that I found your examples very objectionable. And if you don't care but know your customers will, then whether it's public knowledge or not is extremely relevant. I don't think it's possible to do away with social norms, if they steal nude photos of you and send it to all your colleagues it will get weird and awkward. I think you're asking too much of people to pretend like that didn't happen.
Voyager was not designed to go fast, so going 50 times faster is not as hard as it sounds.
I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about. Voyager used the major planets aligning to slingshot out of the solar system at speeds that no practical chemical rocket can reach. This is because to go faster you need to carry more fuel, but this fuel makes it even harder to accelerate causing an exponential relationship. Even just to match Voyager unassisted we need an entirely different kind of unproven technology like fission, fusion, antimatter, ion or solar sail being possible candidates. Going 50 times faster is "they do it on Star Trek" difficult, all we have is loose thought experiments. But hey prove me wrong and you'll have my apologies and more than a few Nobel prizes.
If you try to use very simple, concrete words that can't easily be confused for the purpose of translation then maybe. But for general text with all kinds of irregularities (idioms, euphemisms, allusions, metaphors, jargon, slang, all kinds of word play) translations will still suck bad. The real issue is that you don't know if what the translator was right, even with a very limited vocabulary of your own you can usually make something simple and understandable. With the translator you hopefully have a broad vocabulary and speak grammatically correct, but you've no way of knowing. Reminds me of a girl I once talked to from Quebec, she had taught a visiting guy "pickup lines" in French. Well not really, he tried them at the bar and ended up at the hospital. What are friends for...
But to create a Chinglish-style creole in the future, the lingual export would need to be bidirectional. English speakers would need to be learning Chinese at at least a comparable rate that Chinese speakers are learning English.
The Chinese are big enough to essentially make their own grammar and words, just like US English is similar but not quite the same as UK English. If they start interspersing Chinese words some of them might stick instead of or in addition to the existing word as we read "Chinese English" words and use google. International English is possibly already diverging a bit from the UK/US/AU varieties.
Go to the hippest clubs or most-expensive shopping malls in Shanghai or Hong Kong. You'll see elite Chinese and HK kids speaking English, not Chinese. More often than not, they're speaking English with an English accent too. You don't see elite Western kids in New York or London hanging out and speaking Chinese. (...) The issue isn't population numbers. It's what the global 1% are doing. And they're learning English in increasing numbers.
The elite has often had their own languages, Latin used to be the language of any classic education. French used to be the language of diplomacy. The difference now is that quite ordinary foreigners learn English to become a support desk worker or software developer or work in an airport or the reception of a hotel and so on. Not to mention here in Europe in many large companies English is now the business language, no matter where you are. Sure if we're in a meeting with just locals but if one person doesn't understand English you switch. The casual email might be in the local tongue if you know the recipient, but all code, deliverables and documentation is in English. Or to put it conversely, if you can't work in English you've significantly limited your employment opportunities. The invisible hand of the market is pushing quite well on this one.
I guess i am too old to understand how loose people treat the internet these days. 'I posted my credentials openly on the internet and am now shocked that I have been taken advatage of'... no way! You shared the keys to your kingdom and someone abused it?? Shocking.
He wasn't surprised they were abused. He's surprised what he thought was keys to S3 unlocks the entire kingdom. Like you lose a card for electronic bus tickets and you think the worst they can do is ride the bus for free. Except the card doubles as a "secure ID" and they order thousands of dollars worth of goods from cooperating merchants, which you didn't even know was possible. Sure posting them on Github was ignorant and entirely his fault, but if you try to assess the risk then it's probability * impact and I think he just got a big surprise when it came to impact. I think you're being too hard on him.
It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.
The problem is that I wouldn't want to be the co-occupant, tenant, sleepover guest, new owner, home insurance company, in a different apartment or chained building of someone playing electrician and plumber, if you die in a fire of your own making I don't really care but if you're going to burn down the whole house with me in it then it matters. Every so often we get media examples of people doing home renovation not just in violation of code and regulation but sanity and safety. And the problem is often inside the wall where you don't see it without invasive procedures, are those downlights properly embedded or is it just spotlights in a cut out hole with extension cords behind it? That really happens. The make all these little pitfalls to keep people from even trying. I know what you mean, my dad has been a handyman all his life doing everything himself that he could get away with and if everyone was like him we wouldn't really have a problem. But a lot of people don't have a clue and don't realize it, maybe there could be a "light" certificate but they'd probably think it makes them grandmasters.
No, we couldn't. We don't have the technology right now to build a multi-generational ship. We don't even have the technology right now to send an unmanned probe that would still be powered by the time it got there.
Actually powered may not be that impossible, they're experimenting with Am241 which has a half-life of 432 years, so even after 1000 years it would have ~20% of its initial power production. Do we have electronics that can last that long? Who knows. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977 and is still running, before Intel had even invented the 8086. I'm sure we can do better today if that's our design goal. It seems likely that if it can withstand ~38 years of interstellar radiation that the shielding and error recovery is pretty good already. Obviously with increased distance we'll also need bigger antennas, but Voyager is expected to run out of power in ~10 years before we lose contact and it was a small 722 kg probe, we could easily make it at least ten times bigger. I expect that for the next "grand tour" in 2148 - no, that's not a typo - we'll launch a deep space mission to reach the Oort cloud which would take something like 300-800 years. Not that we're even close to doing interstellar, but it seems like the natural next step unless we've made some other revolutionary breakthroughs.
Let me just blacklist you in AdBlocker and I'll get back to you. Oh and with regards to the topic, well you'll have to wait a whole lot longer for a suitable planet than any old planet. Unless you got terraforming so under control you can build your own planet it's a lot easier to go where you at least get an earth-like rock to start with.
We also have a very good understanding of what "wave-height" means, at least in applied terms: the wave-height at a given point is the probability of finding the particle-like manifestation of the quarticle there.
Quantum mechanics is absurdly weird in more ways I can count, but with regards to having a hidden state and determinism I think I was trying to arrive at the de Broglie-Bohm theory where the universe is in a particular quantum state and there is no more true randomness or free will than in classical physics.
If you look at a typical web page, you have a load of images, a few iframes with ads, scripts (possibly with with multiple web workers). Each one of those really wants to be a separate security domain. You don't want a vulnerability in libpng (something that has happened many times before) to be able to do anything other than break the single image that it's decoding. This kind of fine-grained security is a lot easier if you have the ability to have a load of cheap threads.
Per tab security so visiting myonlinebank.com and evilmalwaresite.com at the same time won't be a problem sure, but honestly I don't care if one image can bork just that image or the whole webpage since they from my perspective is equally untrusted. I request a page from slashdot.org and I don't want it to hose my machine. Slashdot embeds an ad image from their advertising network and it's the same. I suppose you could say that the malicious PNG can now social engineer the whole page or use another exploit in the HTML/Javascript engine to gain even more privileges, but that seems highly theoretical. Particularly since those should be in the same sandbox since you can have bad HTML/Javascript too. I can't imagine the overhead of visiting Google's image search and have it spawn hundreds of security contexts, that seems like a total waste since they're all under Google's control.
I'm with Einstein on this one, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Let's take your basic double slit interference pattern. Either they have some hidden quantum state which means it's not really the exact same thing or the laws of nature are rewritten at a whim for each photon that's far more absurd. Particularly when we can observe the exact same phenomenon on a macro scale in ripple tanks, if we send waves of water against a slit the size of the wave length we get diffraction and if we use double slits we get an interference pattern, all as a function of wave height. We haven't found what the quantum equivalent of wave height is, but it sure seems to work like it exists. Just like we haven't found the force carrier for gravity (unlike electromagnetism: photon, strong force: gluon, weak force: W and Z boson) but obviously there is gravity and presumably something has to carry that force. As for free will, lets just invoke the death penalty on all those who claim their crimes were predetermined. Because then their death sentence is too, right? Put that shit in a philosophy class.
At the same token, in Russia, significant part of population still uses outhouses, average life expectancy of males is 50 years
Do I smell a troill? It's currently 65 years and the lowest it's been since 1950 is 58 years.
Oh please, there are so many billions of people living wildly different life styles and there's a considerable incidence of cancer all of the world. And we got cases of cancer that are 3000 year old, it's not like it showed up recently. And if you correct for increased lifespan there's no explosion in cancer, we only have a lot more old people whose cell reproduction system has had longer to develop a critical fault. Obesity is a contributing factor to heart problem, there's still normal weight/underweight people with heart problems. I don't know any rational basis to assume the default is almost no cancer and it all must be part of some conspiracy, but apparently the tin foil hatters are modding you up. I guess they can mix the cancer-giving stuff into the chemtrails...
There's nothing subjective about the fact that you could, as some particular time not specified by the summary, exchange those 650,000 bitcoins (not "bit coins" as the summary would have it) for $370m.
No, there was never such a time. When MtGox collapsed there was less than 13 million bitcoins total, most of which is being hoarded. Looking at the exchange trade volume there's maybe $5-10 million dollar daily liquidity. In order to sell out without the market crashing you probably couldn't sell more than 10% of that so it'd take years to cash out. And that's assuming you don't overdo it and spook the herd so they all cash out too.
The one who figures out asteroid mining is going to be the real winner!
The one who could produce an economically and technically viable asteroid mining ship would almost certainly already be a trillionaire from applying his inventions here on earth.
However by posting it on a public board, we implicitly give Slashdot permission to redistribute it. An e-mail I send to the feedback section of a newspaper also comes with the implicit permission to print and redistribute it in the newspaper.
Two different kinds of implicit, one is much weaker than the other. In one case the terms are also implicit, I could have just sent the email to the wrong address. What about editing for size, can they do that though it no longer fully expresses your opinion? It's all up in the air. Boards and feedback forms are usually different, they typically have an explicit agreement that you agree to through:
a) User registration
b) Checking a box
c) Submitting/uploading content
d) Terms of the site
I'm pretty sure that if you don't like the way /. uses your comment they'll claim that you gave the following license (found under "Terms" at bottom of page):
By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to link to, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), adapt, create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform or otherwise use such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed. You hereby grant the Company permission to display your logo, trademarks and company name on the Sites and in press and other public releases or filings. Further, by submitting Content to the Company, you acknowledge that you have the authority to grant such rights to the Company. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF ANY COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS IN ANY CONTENT YOU SUBMIT.