After the US, Soviet and China shit in it first. Whenever a big nation goes "We've already have weapons with that capability, but you shouldn't have it." they're not exactly coming from neutral ground. The US is very often trying to freeze the status quo when it's to the American advantage, while acting oblivious to the fact that they're asking to carve permanent differences in stone. Take for example CO2 emissions, the US has one of the highest rates per capita in the world but the American focus has been about curbing growth. Which is nice, if you're already a post-industrial high-pollution low-growth country. But if you're China or India you look at that graph and think fuck that, why should I have to pollute less than an American? It's just as much my planet as yours. I'm not a huge fan of India doing this, but US criticism is the pot calling the kettle black.
That said, if compiling a single C file is what you're attempting to do, Visual Studio is absolutely not the correct tool for you.
Yeah that example was just cringy, it's like showing how massive overkill Photoshop is to crop a photo. The problem is more often like being in a well stocked workshop, the tool you need is guaranteed here but it's actually hard to find the right one and each has a ton of options and configuration settings. Not to mention all the little time savers you find where Intellisense saves you 30 seconds you'd spend in a dumber tool figuring it out. It doesn't make bad coders good coders, but it makes good coders efficient coders. I'd like to say it keeps idiots from shooting themselves in the foot too, but they always find a way.
J4Al4&/rO1.P9DeErxL ) Yes, that's the kind of passwords you should use, even with a secondary two factor authentication device, and it's not hard to learn to remember it, sure - it's not as easy as guitar1234567, and it takes effort to learn it - but most people (if they just kept that note for a few days in the wallet, had to enter it 10 times a day) they WILL remember it, even the average Joe - and their personal security on the net would sky rocket in comparison. But...people are...simple.
You are delusional. Americans find even chip & PIN too hard, have you actually met normal people?
More seriously, this is the advantage of commercial software and corporate directed FOSS projects. Paychecks are how the non-fun parts get done and projects completed. Getting volunteers to diligently work on the non-fun parts of a project can be a major hurdle to overcome.
It's also a pretty good way to distribute the non-fun bits, unless you have a rock star everybody on the team gets their turn/share of the dreary bits. Most projects have people with passion that'll do what needs doing but they're often overwhelmed by everyone else's leftovers, which can fairly quick get depressive. Like code made by those who make too many positive contributions to turn down but who tend to write code that isn't rock solid or doesn't integrate well and generates a lot of noise. Same goes for users that aren't really trolls or toxic but just inept and need hand-holding because they either haven't read the manual or didn't understand it. Or maybe the documentation isn't really that great.
Perhaps the biggest difference though is that most people find room in their life for making money. If you're busy at work and busy at home and your open source contributions are eating away at precious time you don't have it's the hobby that has to go. If it's your paycheck the hours you put in are what puts food on the table for the rest. I've seen way too many stories where people want to put in the hours, but they don't really have the time but since they have the passion they do it anyway and burn out after a while.
Hopefully by 2023 when Win 8.1 goes EOL they will have replaced Nutella with someone that actually cares about making a good OS or I'll be having to jump to Google or Linux.
I was hoping Win10 would be that backtracking after Win8/8.1 and Metro/Ribbon/Store crap the way Win7 backtracked after Vista. But when Microsoft hasn't budged an inch for so long I don't think they'll start now. What annoys me is that nobody's really been gunning for the desktop. Both Apple and Google have been too busy fighting for the smartphone to really put any effort into dethroning Microsoft. I guess there's Linux but I like my AAA games. At least for now I'm going to sit still and watch if Apple will push ARM Macs or not, that could get interesting.
As a company it is attractive to hire resource as and when you need it. You can scale easily, it avoids longer term commitments especially in markets like the EU where labour protections are strong etc. However, if doing the work effectively requires knowledge of the organisation or practices that takes considerable time to pick up then having a stable longer term workforce has a considerable advantage.
At a micro level, what job doesn't? Driving an Uber/package delivery is pretty much the only thing you're already more or less qualified for having a driver's license. I mean could you imagine running even a McDonald's on a gig basis, with people randomly showing up to work an hour? No. You need predictability and a rotation, even though you could probably quite easily get someone new into the system. You could say it's better designed for asynchronous work like rent-a-coder, but the transaction overhead for sane coders to find sane customers and create measurable acceptance criteria is pretty high. At least when I'm thinking of the gig economy as something other than part time/temp/contract work, like really taking on micro packets of work.
You have a point, letters do work fine for most things. (...) Rather than blocking phones it might make more sense to issue each inmate a phone the prison can monitor. The whole situation around the payphones they provide drives a lot of violence and crime simply because there aren't enough of the phones.
Well, monitored voice calls means somebody has to be on call to monitor. You also need to deal with all the accents and lingo to know whether they're talking about something they shouldn't or if they're talking in code. Seems like email would be a much more optimal solution, technically you just run all incoming and outgoing mail through a review process. Skimming a text is a lot quicker than listening to a conversation, you can escalate funny stuff for more thorough review and the inmates can spend however long they want formulating it. Reverse the payment scale so they get the most money for reviewing it within X hours, otherwise they get less for providing sloppy service. It won't help the guy who wants to talk to his kids live, but it'd probably make using the phone less attractive.
Michelin star chefs need Michelin star ingredients, and those come from all corners of the world, the rarer the better.
I find this somehow both true and false, yes they have a tendency so use exotic, expensive ingredients like truffles, saffron and Beluga caviar. Other times it's just about using local ingredients because they're new to globetrotters, like I've eaten quite a bit of moose here in Norway without it being something super exclusive - it's $10-25 per kilo meat depending on cut. But a lot of the time it seems to be fairly mundane ingredients, prepared exceptionally well. Like it doesn't require a lot of special ingredients but it takes a lot of skill and timing to get a perfect raspberry souffle. If you add chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, lemon and a few others you're starting to cover a lot of desserts. Same with a lot of other things you'd find in a well-stocked pantry, but I guess when you're at that level you'll always go the extra mile for that tiny extra zing even if you could make something 95% as good from the local grocery store.
If the king wants to eat food, either he's growing it all himself on his estate, or he needs us to plant, pick, process, and transport that food.
Yes, once upon a time it took a lot of hands to put food on the king's table. Everyone from the farmer to the miller to the baker and all their helpers had to get rather personally involved in growing the crops and creating that sack of grain, the flour and that particular bread. Something like 90% working in the primary industries, mostly agriculture. Fast forward to today and it's down to about 2% thanks to industrialization and automation, but there's still a farmer doing the farming. Is 0% achievable? Possibly. Maybe soon there is no farmer or farmhouse, it's just a plot of land and machines owned by a faceless mega-company that'll do all the plowing and sowing and watering and fertilization and pesticides and reaping and quality checking delivering sacks of grain in a self-driving lorry to a grain mill. Same goes for the mill, bakery and grocery store - there's food, but nobody makes the food.
We are seeing the beginning of sci-fi territory where self-correcting, self-repairing machines can keep a society running whether or not the people actually have any clue what it's doing. Where the King has a new set of serfs that aren't so uppity as the old ones, of course it will take a royal court of privileged people like Michelin star chefs to design new food and those who design/maintain/repair the systems but all the rest are just nice-to-have not need-to have. While I don't think we'll have Elysium in space, it's not entirely unlikely we'll end up with something similar here on Earth. A tax heaven with all the rich people, served by robots and the best technology has to offer while everyone else need to fend for themselves. They just have to lose all the support staff they depend on today, but that's a work in progress.
So India's actions are not evidence of anything new, just the continued realization that national defense *requires* a significant focus on controlling space in some way. Denying your adversaries the high ground, as we used to call it.
Unfortunately it's more like a scorched earth scenario with no real prospect of cleanup, this is just one more nation that can fuck it up for everybody. Even just in LEO any mass destruction of satellites would fuck it up for a century or two. The horror scenario is someone intentionally launching a debris cloud the wrong way into GEO, since they're all in the exact same orbit it'd be like shooting them all with a shotgun creating a debris ring that'll last a million years or more. That would be a lasting problem long after we've recovered from every nuke going off here on Earth.
When "Jeff in Lexington", "Anonymous in Boston", "Real Paul Revere2", and "George Wash1ngton" are all propaganda spewing sock puppets being run directly from the King's Court, then we might not have had a Boston Tea Party, we might have had a Boston Printing Press Party, because that's not free speech, that's an affront to free speech. (...) Freedom of speech does not mean lazily handing a global megaphone to everyone in the world
Actually that is what it's about, every regime from the United States to North Korea has their own propaganda machine, the question is not whether it will exist or not. It's whether there'll be a constitutionally protected opposition or not and whether that freedom is real in practice. Like for example what Martin Luther King fought for, the right to vote was theoretically in the constitution since 1865 but if you just make it hard and dangerous to use you cut it off at the knees. To use a quote from Selma
We know Johnson can't see the full picture. So, let's paint it for him. What are the specific hardships and humiliations we can address within the larger context of legislation? Doc, we gotta start with banning these laws that if a Negro tries to register, I mean, actually musters up the courage to go in that courthouse, that their name and address is published in the paper. It gives anybody who wants to do them any harm their exact location, and we know how the Klan is. - I hear that. But the poll taxes got to be our focus first. 'Cause black people are poor! Black people are poor down here. - Yep. - And they expected to pay for every year they weren't legally registered before they can register. Now, what the hell is that? Who got that kind of money? Come on now!
Listen now! The big issue is voting vouchers. - Is that the number one issue? - Now hold on. Let me finish. 'Cause everybody'll forget about this part. But if you're Negro, the only way you can vote is if an approved registered voter vouches for you. Right? So, let's say, you take some place like Lowndes County, where there are no Negroes who are registered and you've got to have someone who is registered to vouch for you. What are you supposed to do? Nobody you know, not a single black person for 100 miles is registered. So how do you get the voucher, right? To get you into the courthouse door to pay the poll tax to get your name published and get yourself dead.
Now they're trying to wrap up free speech in the same kind of web, sure you have free speech if you register with a government ID, if you go to a "free speech zone", if we get to moderate it first in case of Bad Stuff(tm) because I'm sure nothing controversial or critical of the government will be flagged for review and hidden so it never becomes the top comment, oh and let's have a real names policy so the new Klan knows where you live and so on. And you're never going to mysteriously appear on a no-fly list for extended security checks, no sir. They're never going to go over your tax returns with a fine tooth comb to find a violation. And it'll never be hacked or abused/leaked by people in the system. Unless they choose to play dirty, then you'll sadly be killed in a home invasion or disappear to a reeducation camp.
Look, say if the King of England had allowed free speech, when "Jeff in Lexington" says something obscene about colonial aspirations, that's speech we can just disagree with. Some people did support the monarchy in colonial America after all.
They were plotting actual treason and the armed overthrow of the government. How far do you think they would have gotten if they had to give constant progress reports to the government? Yes, maybe ToasterMonkey (467067) is a propaganda spewing sock puppet from Russia out to destroy America, but I'm willing to take my chances. It's better than creating some kind of registration/verification scheme where everyone has to hand the government a log of their speech before participating in the public debate.
It just seems weird to me that the intended target was charged as a co-conspirator. Was it for giving a fake (old) address? Seems a really low bar to co-conspire in something, if you can get charged for misdirection against and evading someone actively trying to cause you harm.
Depends on what glasses you put on. From the victim's point of view he's effectively the mastermind who used Barriss as his stooge to send the cops as hit men. He goaded and taunted Barriss into doing it, that he pretended to bring the harm on himself only makes him more liable as the one pulling the strings.
Let's try an analogy: You've been sleeping with the wife/daughter of dangerous/violent criminal, but they don't know who you are. You taunt them with intimate details about her body/bedroom and they threaten to kill you if they find you. So you hand them the name and address of someone you hate and is like here I am, you haven't got the guts you big pussy. That's a little bit past evading harm, it's framing people to come to harm.
And the office didn't open fire immediately after the man came out, but only after the man came out with his hands up, then turned, lowed his arms and with one hand made a motion to his waist. The cop thought that he was going for a gun that was shooter reported in the police call possessed.
The cop thought he was going for a gun because he was trained to see any hand motion as going for a gun, and was expecting the victim to go for a gun. If you go camping in the woods and are afraid of bears, every shadow looks like a bear and every noise sounds like a bear.
Except you're not going to any random place "in the woods", you're going to where a rabid bear allegedly just mauled a bunch of victims. That will strongly screw your perception that everything is the bear until proven otherwise. I mean the guy who calls into 911 with that story is a nutter, he could very well be coming out onto that porch to die in suicide-by-cop because that's why he called them over. Doesn't matter that he's surrounded by a ton of cops in full tactical gear, out in the open, blinded by a floodlight it still seemed plausible he'd grab a gun from his waistband and open fire.
In retrospect we know all of this is wrong, he was probably just losing his pants and had a natural reaction to reach for them before he realized how poorly that could be interpreted. Heck, in any other case of mistaken identity where the police wasn't riled up to expect a psycho killer on a rampage he'd probably still be alive, because when you look at it without the context he was shot and killed for one tiny little deviation from total compliance. Somebody very maliciously planted that idea in the cop's head though.
I mean Barriss admitted to making lots of swatting calls. In all of them except this one the cops were able to defuse the situation. In this situation, all but one cop kept their calm. If you keep buying enough lottery tickets sooner or later you'll find the perfect storm where one cop on a bad day in one situation under unfortunate circumstances makes one bad call and opens fire. And yes the reaction was premature and excessive, but we only ever hear about it when it goes horribly wrong. It's tough to be right 100% of the time.
Whether it's NASA or SpaceX there's a helluva lot of useful research on rockets that is never going to find its way into a whitepaper. Academia and open research have its place but those throwing out hyperbole like "all research should be free for the good of mankind" is off on a RMS-like crusade against proprietary research. Managing some kind of curated scientific journal is a lot of work that requires money, it's not just putting up arXiv and have everyone have a go at publishing their junk. If you want access to neatly compiled data on say the bleeding edge of cancer research it's not unreasonable there's a price.
I don't think it will happen either, but it's the camel's nose in the tent if NASA starts doing real feasibility studies. Remember that the SLS has a $2.15 billion dollar yearly budget, it's enough to launch two dozen Falcon Heavies at the base price ($90m). Unless something goes FUBAR SpaceX should come out of 2019 with manned Falcon 9 flights, multiple Falcon Heavy flights and initial tests of the BFR launch sequence in a hopper. It's only a matter of time before SpaceX dares to put a launch price on it. It might still end up launching into space but I think it'll be obvious it's a dead end by that.
Sorry, you can not illegally download. By law, the uploader, is claiming copyright, illegally, you are not responsible for their actions as a downloader
The first exclusive right given to copyright holders is reproduction, not distribution. Recording TV and radio broadcasts is fair use, but downloading illegally uploaded files is not. Though they have to prove you actually saved it and not simply streamed it, it is not illegal to watch.
Even with just a megabit connection, I could download months worth of audio traffic in a single day.
Meh, you really don't want to go much lower than 128 kbps so 1/8th of a megabit = 8 days of music per day at 100% utilization. Don't get me wrong it was at least faster than real time unlike dial-up, but it was not all that fast. Now I got fiber and 350 Mbps, a back of the napkin estimate says Spotify's 35 million song collection is ~100 TB and I could download it in a month. Good luck by stopping piracy by volume, it's like 2001 called and wanted their Napster arguments back.
TV and movies are boring. Uninteresting. Formulaic. Predictable. (...) Protip: a movie should have a beginning, a middle, and a satisfying ending. Even if the ending is unrealistic, it should leave people happy and satisfied.
The irony here is so thick I could cut it with a knife. What you describe sounds like the dullest "and they all lived happily ever after" Disney movie for kids. Some of the best movies I know totally throw the formula out the window like Memento, throw total curve balls where you think you know what's going on but doesn't like The Sixth Sense or have semi-dark endings like Man On Fire where it's obvious not everyone is walking out of there.
If I want a popcorn flick where the superhero saves the day I can go watch that, but it's never exciting whether Wonder Woman or Aquaman or Spiderman or Iron Man or the Hulk or whatever pulls through - leads don't die if it's rated PG-13 or less. I'd rather watch GoT where nobody's safe and everyone from the evilest shit to the kindest, most innocent character can end up dead any moment. The only thing I'm sure of is that there will always be a Stark in Winterfell.
I'm anti-guns but this must be some of the crappiest arguments I've heard. People get stabbed, bludgeoned, hacked and strangled to death without guns too. Your average "family tragedy" doesn't take anything more than kitchen knifes or a tool rack. Short of a very few protected individuals very few could survive an outright assassination attempt, even the celebrities with bodyguards aren't equipped like the Secret Service. And even they have problems if someone comes in guns blazing. The main arguments I have against it is:
a) Escalation: In Europe it's rare that a burglary/robbery ends up being an unplanned murder. I mean in that swatting case we saw a SWAT team in full gear shoot a guy lit up by a floodlight because one of the cops thought he might be reaching for something. What's the risk a lone cat burglar/mugger thinks you were reaching for a gun? Nobody outruns bullets. With knives it'll default towards getting the fuck out of there. b) Amplification: We have killers but we rarely have killing sprees, people kill those they're extremely angry with but not everyone in sight. It actually takes effort to chase down and kill a victim, while with a gun it's easy to take as many people with you as possible, with very little time to escape. c) Collateral: You often hear tragic cases of little kids and other bystanders hit by stray bullets and such, that just doesn't happen with melee weapons. Heck, sometimes it's not even the attacker's bullets it's those trying to defend themselves or the cops. It's just messed up for everybody. d) Asymmetry: Western-style duels are pretty damn rare. If you have the time and chance to retreat you often have the time to lock the door, block the door and call 911. If you're already at gunpoint the gun on your hip doesn't do much good. They always get to pick the time and place and come prepared, you don't.
In 1786 I would have preferred my own gun too, it's not like they had a cell phone to call the police. The sheriff was somebody you could ride into town to tell about it hours after the fact, if you were still alive. Also they didn't exactly have much in the way of fingerprints and DNA, wear a mask and you were an anonymous bandit. The militia that was supposed to be all able-bodied men who kept their own guns, it pretty clear if you read the history they did not want the government to be able to disarm the population. But in the 18th century you'd be pretty crazy to think that's the only thing it was for.
And deterministic systems don't handle chaos very well. Even if all the cars are automated, you have people, dogs, deer running into the street. You have blowout tires. You have road damage, debris, snow. Given that understanding a left-hand exit is problematic today, how does it handle a deer dashing on to the road? Or snow covering all lane markings - and heavy enough to block GPS signals?
I think the fact that making a left turn is hard is more of a testament to how much humans are just winging it, I'm sure the computer actually has more detailed information on the opposing traffic than I do. I've absolutely made left turns where I had to stop dead due to an unexpected pedestrian and I'm relying on the opposing traffic not to ram me because I'm still in their lane. In any case, if that was the only hindrance we'd put up turn lights in addition to the straight red-yellow-green. As for everything else, I'd be happy with an AI that detects when it's out of its depth. My commutes are 99% boring, if it one day it says there's a blizzard outside I got other options.
The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
I'm from Norway, we've rejected the EU twice (1972 and 1994) and I can assure you that if we had said yes once we'd never get a second vote a few years later to reconsider no matter how many was starting to think it was a bad idea. Britain voted to leave and it's the government's job to get it done, not flunk the negotiations and ask for a do-over. If that's the best they'll get either take the deal or not but get out already.
And no, what you have now is not solid facts it's a scary bluff pretending like the UK would be a pariah without the EU. I've heard that bluff before, the UK will still be part of Europe and a country of 60 million people that's the 21th largest in the world doesn't have to be part of a super-block. Right now they're trying to scare people with the no-deal monster but once leaving is a fact they'd go back to being constructive on how we could cooperate in the future. That's what they did with us, once it was clear we weren't joining the EU they got busy drafting the EEC instead.
But there are almost always two types of risks that outrank them. First, the low-probability but high impact risks that more often than expected turn out to be existence-threatening and that fact makes them more important than their statistical value indicates.
The funny thing is that when these actually happen they usually tend to be a whole chain of mistakes, but the sub-events that don't actually lead to an incident are often grossly under-reported. Like the rules say you are to wear belt and suspenders, but nobody wants to report a broken belt or missing suspenders. Even if you actually lost your pants and nobody saw let's just quickly pull them up and pretend you didn't almost get caught with your pants down. There's a lot of "no harm no foul" going around a lot of places that cover up for a bad process, bad testing and sloppy coding. But it's also because raising a security bug can rain fire and brimstone down on that team and be abused politically.
Until someone hacks their robots... Attention all robots: rotate 180 degrees and resume fire!
That is a risk on all systems where you're not physically pulling the trigger, just patch out whatever asks for human confirmation today. Unless there's some missing cryptographic key wired into the hardware, a physical lock-out or something like that everything else can be replaced with "if (true) fire()".
Narratives allow you to explain the past perfectly using models that have no predictive value. The only way to make progress when trying to understand a complex system is to come up with very simple hypotheses and try to validate them empirically. Of course this is very hard to do, but I think people in the humanities do a poor job and fool themselves into thinking they understand things they don't understand.
A person is not a dice, no matter how much you want it to be. You can ask a fairly simple question like "Would you pose for nude art?" and get a survey answer. But if you break it down there'll be a ton of factors and the more answers you get and the more fine masked you make your model you'll only end up finding more and more differences plus the answer will not remain constant in place or time with a strong group dynamic and feedback loops. And you still will not have found a meaningful answer to why, only a bunch of correlated variables. Qualitative studies do the exact opposite, they don't generalize they ask one and one subject to explain their reasoning and try to summarize them into common sentiments. It's a much more accurate description for each person and the group as a whole. It's just really hard to compare scores because it's not on a measurable willingness scale.
Yes, we've vaguely identified some risk factors that are usually present in a terrorist. We've got a long manifestos on why exactly that person turned into a terrorist. But everyone at risk are somewhere in between, they're not just risk factors and they're not clones of the terrorist. It's something like the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for the social sciences, the more specific knowledge you have of an individual the less applicable it's to the group and the more general knowledge you have on the group the less accurate it's for the individual. They're both circling what nobody knows for sure, what exactly goes on in somebody else's head. Until we discover mind-reading technology that's going to be an approximation at best. Just because you can sell power tools to most Americans if you throw a dart at a map you could hit an Amish community.
Reasonably powerful? Do you mean capable of reason? Because it's likely that such will happen in a supercomputer before it happens in some hobbyist's garage.
Well maybe, maybe not. I mean we didn't start out as humans, before that we were monkeys etc. all the way back to single celled organisms. It might be that we're trying too hard to replicate intelligent behavior rather than find the underlying principles of intelligence. For example take AlphaZero, it was based on AlphaGo Zero which played Go. But rather than being a dedicated engine with a lot of specific programming for Go it just as easily beat the best at chess and shogi.
Uber(!?) managed to pull off some impressive results with Go-Explore, a family of so-called quality diversity AI models. Open AI Five is constantly improving in DOTA, even though they're not playing the full game yet it's an open map with team play. Tencent is showing off some good Starcraft II play, even if they can't beat the best. DeepMind made some ass kicking Quake III Arena capture the flag bots. But is there some kind of supreme overlay that could evolve into all these AIs? I would say probably yes.
That's really the holy grail of AI, what is like the "spark" of intelligence that learns to learn. It's probably relatively simple once we can look at it in retrospect, it's not a lot of code to do one specific task. It's some kind of general pattern to create more complex, dedicated "sub-AIs" for specific tasks like we have different brain centers in the brain. That and a few billion years of evolution, but computers can get pull that off pretty quick if we can just figure out where we're supposed to start. It'll probably start by beating us at tic-tac-toe, not any of the above.
Slashdot Mirror
After the US, Soviet and China shit in it first. Whenever a big nation goes "We've already have weapons with that capability, but you shouldn't have it." they're not exactly coming from neutral ground. The US is very often trying to freeze the status quo when it's to the American advantage, while acting oblivious to the fact that they're asking to carve permanent differences in stone. Take for example CO2 emissions, the US has one of the highest rates per capita in the world but the American focus has been about curbing growth. Which is nice, if you're already a post-industrial high-pollution low-growth country. But if you're China or India you look at that graph and think fuck that, why should I have to pollute less than an American? It's just as much my planet as yours. I'm not a huge fan of India doing this, but US criticism is the pot calling the kettle black.
That said, if compiling a single C file is what you're attempting to do, Visual Studio is absolutely not the correct tool for you.
Yeah that example was just cringy, it's like showing how massive overkill Photoshop is to crop a photo. The problem is more often like being in a well stocked workshop, the tool you need is guaranteed here but it's actually hard to find the right one and each has a ton of options and configuration settings. Not to mention all the little time savers you find where Intellisense saves you 30 seconds you'd spend in a dumber tool figuring it out. It doesn't make bad coders good coders, but it makes good coders efficient coders. I'd like to say it keeps idiots from shooting themselves in the foot too, but they always find a way.
J4Al4&/rO1.P9DeErxL ) Yes, that's the kind of passwords you should use, even with a secondary two factor authentication device, and it's not hard to learn to remember it, sure - it's not as easy as guitar1234567, and it takes effort to learn it - but most people (if they just kept that note for a few days in the wallet, had to enter it 10 times a day) they WILL remember it, even the average Joe - and their personal security on the net would sky rocket in comparison. But...people are ...simple.
You are delusional. Americans find even chip & PIN too hard, have you actually met normal people?
More seriously, this is the advantage of commercial software and corporate directed FOSS projects. Paychecks are how the non-fun parts get done and projects completed. Getting volunteers to diligently work on the non-fun parts of a project can be a major hurdle to overcome.
It's also a pretty good way to distribute the non-fun bits, unless you have a rock star everybody on the team gets their turn/share of the dreary bits. Most projects have people with passion that'll do what needs doing but they're often overwhelmed by everyone else's leftovers, which can fairly quick get depressive. Like code made by those who make too many positive contributions to turn down but who tend to write code that isn't rock solid or doesn't integrate well and generates a lot of noise. Same goes for users that aren't really trolls or toxic but just inept and need hand-holding because they either haven't read the manual or didn't understand it. Or maybe the documentation isn't really that great.
Perhaps the biggest difference though is that most people find room in their life for making money. If you're busy at work and busy at home and your open source contributions are eating away at precious time you don't have it's the hobby that has to go. If it's your paycheck the hours you put in are what puts food on the table for the rest. I've seen way too many stories where people want to put in the hours, but they don't really have the time but since they have the passion they do it anyway and burn out after a while.
Hopefully by 2023 when Win 8.1 goes EOL they will have replaced Nutella with someone that actually cares about making a good OS or I'll be having to jump to Google or Linux.
I was hoping Win10 would be that backtracking after Win8/8.1 and Metro/Ribbon/Store crap the way Win7 backtracked after Vista. But when Microsoft hasn't budged an inch for so long I don't think they'll start now. What annoys me is that nobody's really been gunning for the desktop. Both Apple and Google have been too busy fighting for the smartphone to really put any effort into dethroning Microsoft. I guess there's Linux but I like my AAA games. At least for now I'm going to sit still and watch if Apple will push ARM Macs or not, that could get interesting.
As a company it is attractive to hire resource as and when you need it. You can scale easily, it avoids longer term commitments especially in markets like the EU where labour protections are strong etc. However, if doing the work effectively requires knowledge of the organisation or practices that takes considerable time to pick up then having a stable longer term workforce has a considerable advantage.
At a micro level, what job doesn't? Driving an Uber/package delivery is pretty much the only thing you're already more or less qualified for having a driver's license. I mean could you imagine running even a McDonald's on a gig basis, with people randomly showing up to work an hour? No. You need predictability and a rotation, even though you could probably quite easily get someone new into the system. You could say it's better designed for asynchronous work like rent-a-coder, but the transaction overhead for sane coders to find sane customers and create measurable acceptance criteria is pretty high. At least when I'm thinking of the gig economy as something other than part time/temp/contract work, like really taking on micro packets of work.
You have a point, letters do work fine for most things. (...) Rather than blocking phones it might make more sense to issue each inmate a phone the prison can monitor. The whole situation around the payphones they provide drives a lot of violence and crime simply because there aren't enough of the phones.
Well, monitored voice calls means somebody has to be on call to monitor. You also need to deal with all the accents and lingo to know whether they're talking about something they shouldn't or if they're talking in code. Seems like email would be a much more optimal solution, technically you just run all incoming and outgoing mail through a review process. Skimming a text is a lot quicker than listening to a conversation, you can escalate funny stuff for more thorough review and the inmates can spend however long they want formulating it. Reverse the payment scale so they get the most money for reviewing it within X hours, otherwise they get less for providing sloppy service. It won't help the guy who wants to talk to his kids live, but it'd probably make using the phone less attractive.
Michelin star chefs need Michelin star ingredients, and those come from all corners of the world, the rarer the better.
I find this somehow both true and false, yes they have a tendency so use exotic, expensive ingredients like truffles, saffron and Beluga caviar. Other times it's just about using local ingredients because they're new to globetrotters, like I've eaten quite a bit of moose here in Norway without it being something super exclusive - it's $10-25 per kilo meat depending on cut. But a lot of the time it seems to be fairly mundane ingredients, prepared exceptionally well. Like it doesn't require a lot of special ingredients but it takes a lot of skill and timing to get a perfect raspberry souffle. If you add chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, lemon and a few others you're starting to cover a lot of desserts. Same with a lot of other things you'd find in a well-stocked pantry, but I guess when you're at that level you'll always go the extra mile for that tiny extra zing even if you could make something 95% as good from the local grocery store.
If the king wants to eat food, either he's growing it all himself on his estate, or he needs us to plant, pick, process, and transport that food.
Yes, once upon a time it took a lot of hands to put food on the king's table. Everyone from the farmer to the miller to the baker and all their helpers had to get rather personally involved in growing the crops and creating that sack of grain, the flour and that particular bread. Something like 90% working in the primary industries, mostly agriculture. Fast forward to today and it's down to about 2% thanks to industrialization and automation, but there's still a farmer doing the farming. Is 0% achievable? Possibly. Maybe soon there is no farmer or farmhouse, it's just a plot of land and machines owned by a faceless mega-company that'll do all the plowing and sowing and watering and fertilization and pesticides and reaping and quality checking delivering sacks of grain in a self-driving lorry to a grain mill. Same goes for the mill, bakery and grocery store - there's food, but nobody makes the food.
We are seeing the beginning of sci-fi territory where self-correcting, self-repairing machines can keep a society running whether or not the people actually have any clue what it's doing. Where the King has a new set of serfs that aren't so uppity as the old ones, of course it will take a royal court of privileged people like Michelin star chefs to design new food and those who design/maintain/repair the systems but all the rest are just nice-to-have not need-to have. While I don't think we'll have Elysium in space, it's not entirely unlikely we'll end up with something similar here on Earth. A tax heaven with all the rich people, served by robots and the best technology has to offer while everyone else need to fend for themselves. They just have to lose all the support staff they depend on today, but that's a work in progress.
So India's actions are not evidence of anything new, just the continued realization that national defense *requires* a significant focus on controlling space in some way. Denying your adversaries the high ground, as we used to call it.
Unfortunately it's more like a scorched earth scenario with no real prospect of cleanup, this is just one more nation that can fuck it up for everybody. Even just in LEO any mass destruction of satellites would fuck it up for a century or two. The horror scenario is someone intentionally launching a debris cloud the wrong way into GEO, since they're all in the exact same orbit it'd be like shooting them all with a shotgun creating a debris ring that'll last a million years or more. That would be a lasting problem long after we've recovered from every nuke going off here on Earth.
When "Jeff in Lexington", "Anonymous in Boston", "Real Paul Revere2", and "George Wash1ngton" are all propaganda spewing sock puppets being run directly from the King's Court, then we might not have had a Boston Tea Party, we might have had a Boston Printing Press Party, because that's not free speech, that's an affront to free speech. (...) Freedom of speech does not mean lazily handing a global megaphone to everyone in the world
Actually that is what it's about, every regime from the United States to North Korea has their own propaganda machine, the question is not whether it will exist or not. It's whether there'll be a constitutionally protected opposition or not and whether that freedom is real in practice. Like for example what Martin Luther King fought for, the right to vote was theoretically in the constitution since 1865 but if you just make it hard and dangerous to use you cut it off at the knees. To use a quote from Selma
We know Johnson can't see the full picture. So, let's paint it for him. What are the specific hardships and humiliations we can address within the larger context of legislation? Doc, we gotta start with banning these laws that if a Negro tries to register, I mean, actually musters up the courage to go in that courthouse, that their name and address is published in the paper. It gives anybody who wants to do them any harm their exact location, and we know how the Klan is. - I hear that. But the poll taxes got to be our focus first. 'Cause black people are poor! Black people are poor down here. - Yep. - And they expected to pay for every year they weren't legally registered before they can register. Now, what the hell is that? Who got that kind of money? Come on now!
Listen now! The big issue is voting vouchers. - Is that the number one issue? - Now hold on. Let me finish. 'Cause everybody'll forget about this part. But if you're Negro, the only way you can vote is if an approved registered voter vouches for you. Right? So, let's say, you take some place like Lowndes County, where there are no Negroes who are registered and you've got to have someone who is registered to vouch for you. What are you supposed to do? Nobody you know, not a single black person for 100 miles is registered. So how do you get the voucher, right? To get you into the courthouse door to pay the poll tax to get your name published and get yourself dead.
Now they're trying to wrap up free speech in the same kind of web, sure you have free speech if you register with a government ID, if you go to a "free speech zone", if we get to moderate it first in case of Bad Stuff(tm) because I'm sure nothing controversial or critical of the government will be flagged for review and hidden so it never becomes the top comment, oh and let's have a real names policy so the new Klan knows where you live and so on. And you're never going to mysteriously appear on a no-fly list for extended security checks, no sir. They're never going to go over your tax returns with a fine tooth comb to find a violation. And it'll never be hacked or abused/leaked by people in the system. Unless they choose to play dirty, then you'll sadly be killed in a home invasion or disappear to a reeducation camp.
Look, say if the King of England had allowed free speech, when "Jeff in Lexington" says something obscene about colonial aspirations, that's speech we can just disagree with. Some people did support the monarchy in colonial America after all.
They were plotting actual treason and the armed overthrow of the government. How far do you think they would have gotten if they had to give constant progress reports to the government? Yes, maybe ToasterMonkey (467067) is a propaganda spewing sock puppet from Russia out to destroy America, but I'm willing to take my chances. It's better than creating some kind of registration/verification scheme where everyone has to hand the government a log of their speech before participating in the public debate.
It just seems weird to me that the intended target was charged as a co-conspirator. Was it for giving a fake (old) address? Seems a really low bar to co-conspire in something, if you can get charged for misdirection against and evading someone actively trying to cause you harm.
Depends on what glasses you put on. From the victim's point of view he's effectively the mastermind who used Barriss as his stooge to send the cops as hit men. He goaded and taunted Barriss into doing it, that he pretended to bring the harm on himself only makes him more liable as the one pulling the strings.
Let's try an analogy: You've been sleeping with the wife/daughter of dangerous/violent criminal, but they don't know who you are. You taunt them with intimate details about her body/bedroom and they threaten to kill you if they find you. So you hand them the name and address of someone you hate and is like here I am, you haven't got the guts you big pussy. That's a little bit past evading harm, it's framing people to come to harm.
And the office didn't open fire immediately after the man came out, but only after the man came out with his hands up, then turned, lowed his arms and with one hand made a motion to his waist. The cop thought that he was going for a gun that was shooter reported in the police call possessed.
The cop thought he was going for a gun because he was trained to see any hand motion as going for a gun, and was expecting the victim to go for a gun. If you go camping in the woods and are afraid of bears, every shadow looks like a bear and every noise sounds like a bear.
Except you're not going to any random place "in the woods", you're going to where a rabid bear allegedly just mauled a bunch of victims. That will strongly screw your perception that everything is the bear until proven otherwise. I mean the guy who calls into 911 with that story is a nutter, he could very well be coming out onto that porch to die in suicide-by-cop because that's why he called them over. Doesn't matter that he's surrounded by a ton of cops in full tactical gear, out in the open, blinded by a floodlight it still seemed plausible he'd grab a gun from his waistband and open fire.
In retrospect we know all of this is wrong, he was probably just losing his pants and had a natural reaction to reach for them before he realized how poorly that could be interpreted. Heck, in any other case of mistaken identity where the police wasn't riled up to expect a psycho killer on a rampage he'd probably still be alive, because when you look at it without the context he was shot and killed for one tiny little deviation from total compliance. Somebody very maliciously planted that idea in the cop's head though.
I mean Barriss admitted to making lots of swatting calls. In all of them except this one the cops were able to defuse the situation. In this situation, all but one cop kept their calm. If you keep buying enough lottery tickets sooner or later you'll find the perfect storm where one cop on a bad day in one situation under unfortunate circumstances makes one bad call and opens fire. And yes the reaction was premature and excessive, but we only ever hear about it when it goes horribly wrong. It's tough to be right 100% of the time.
Whether it's NASA or SpaceX there's a helluva lot of useful research on rockets that is never going to find its way into a whitepaper. Academia and open research have its place but those throwing out hyperbole like "all research should be free for the good of mankind" is off on a RMS-like crusade against proprietary research. Managing some kind of curated scientific journal is a lot of work that requires money, it's not just putting up arXiv and have everyone have a go at publishing their junk. If you want access to neatly compiled data on say the bleeding edge of cancer research it's not unreasonable there's a price.
I don't think it will happen either, but it's the camel's nose in the tent if NASA starts doing real feasibility studies. Remember that the SLS has a $2.15 billion dollar yearly budget, it's enough to launch two dozen Falcon Heavies at the base price ($90m). Unless something goes FUBAR SpaceX should come out of 2019 with manned Falcon 9 flights, multiple Falcon Heavy flights and initial tests of the BFR launch sequence in a hopper. It's only a matter of time before SpaceX dares to put a launch price on it. It might still end up launching into space but I think it'll be obvious it's a dead end by that.
Sorry, you can not illegally download. By law, the uploader, is claiming copyright, illegally, you are not responsible for their actions as a downloader
The first exclusive right given to copyright holders is reproduction, not distribution. Recording TV and radio broadcasts is fair use, but downloading illegally uploaded files is not. Though they have to prove you actually saved it and not simply streamed it, it is not illegal to watch.
Even with just a megabit connection, I could download months worth of audio traffic in a single day.
Meh, you really don't want to go much lower than 128 kbps so 1/8th of a megabit = 8 days of music per day at 100% utilization. Don't get me wrong it was at least faster than real time unlike dial-up, but it was not all that fast. Now I got fiber and 350 Mbps, a back of the napkin estimate says Spotify's 35 million song collection is ~100 TB and I could download it in a month. Good luck by stopping piracy by volume, it's like 2001 called and wanted their Napster arguments back.
TV and movies are boring. Uninteresting. Formulaic. Predictable. (...) Protip: a movie should have a beginning, a middle, and a satisfying ending. Even if the ending is unrealistic, it should leave people happy and satisfied.
The irony here is so thick I could cut it with a knife. What you describe sounds like the dullest "and they all lived happily ever after" Disney movie for kids. Some of the best movies I know totally throw the formula out the window like Memento, throw total curve balls where you think you know what's going on but doesn't like The Sixth Sense or have semi-dark endings like Man On Fire where it's obvious not everyone is walking out of there.
If I want a popcorn flick where the superhero saves the day I can go watch that, but it's never exciting whether Wonder Woman or Aquaman or Spiderman or Iron Man or the Hulk or whatever pulls through - leads don't die if it's rated PG-13 or less. I'd rather watch GoT where nobody's safe and everyone from the evilest shit to the kindest, most innocent character can end up dead any moment. The only thing I'm sure of is that there will always be a Stark in Winterfell.
I'm anti-guns but this must be some of the crappiest arguments I've heard. People get stabbed, bludgeoned, hacked and strangled to death without guns too. Your average "family tragedy" doesn't take anything more than kitchen knifes or a tool rack. Short of a very few protected individuals very few could survive an outright assassination attempt, even the celebrities with bodyguards aren't equipped like the Secret Service. And even they have problems if someone comes in guns blazing. The main arguments I have against it is:
a) Escalation: In Europe it's rare that a burglary/robbery ends up being an unplanned murder. I mean in that swatting case we saw a SWAT team in full gear shoot a guy lit up by a floodlight because one of the cops thought he might be reaching for something. What's the risk a lone cat burglar/mugger thinks you were reaching for a gun? Nobody outruns bullets. With knives it'll default towards getting the fuck out of there.
b) Amplification: We have killers but we rarely have killing sprees, people kill those they're extremely angry with but not everyone in sight. It actually takes effort to chase down and kill a victim, while with a gun it's easy to take as many people with you as possible, with very little time to escape.
c) Collateral: You often hear tragic cases of little kids and other bystanders hit by stray bullets and such, that just doesn't happen with melee weapons. Heck, sometimes it's not even the attacker's bullets it's those trying to defend themselves or the cops. It's just messed up for everybody.
d) Asymmetry: Western-style duels are pretty damn rare. If you have the time and chance to retreat you often have the time to lock the door, block the door and call 911. If you're already at gunpoint the gun on your hip doesn't do much good. They always get to pick the time and place and come prepared, you don't.
In 1786 I would have preferred my own gun too, it's not like they had a cell phone to call the police. The sheriff was somebody you could ride into town to tell about it hours after the fact, if you were still alive. Also they didn't exactly have much in the way of fingerprints and DNA, wear a mask and you were an anonymous bandit. The militia that was supposed to be all able-bodied men who kept their own guns, it pretty clear if you read the history they did not want the government to be able to disarm the population. But in the 18th century you'd be pretty crazy to think that's the only thing it was for.
And deterministic systems don't handle chaos very well. Even if all the cars are automated, you have people, dogs, deer running into the street. You have blowout tires. You have road damage, debris, snow. Given that understanding a left-hand exit is problematic today, how does it handle a deer dashing on to the road? Or snow covering all lane markings - and heavy enough to block GPS signals?
I think the fact that making a left turn is hard is more of a testament to how much humans are just winging it, I'm sure the computer actually has more detailed information on the opposing traffic than I do. I've absolutely made left turns where I had to stop dead due to an unexpected pedestrian and I'm relying on the opposing traffic not to ram me because I'm still in their lane. In any case, if that was the only hindrance we'd put up turn lights in addition to the straight red-yellow-green. As for everything else, I'd be happy with an AI that detects when it's out of its depth. My commutes are 99% boring, if it one day it says there's a blizzard outside I got other options.
The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
I'm from Norway, we've rejected the EU twice (1972 and 1994) and I can assure you that if we had said yes once we'd never get a second vote a few years later to reconsider no matter how many was starting to think it was a bad idea. Britain voted to leave and it's the government's job to get it done, not flunk the negotiations and ask for a do-over. If that's the best they'll get either take the deal or not but get out already.
And no, what you have now is not solid facts it's a scary bluff pretending like the UK would be a pariah without the EU. I've heard that bluff before, the UK will still be part of Europe and a country of 60 million people that's the 21th largest in the world doesn't have to be part of a super-block. Right now they're trying to scare people with the no-deal monster but once leaving is a fact they'd go back to being constructive on how we could cooperate in the future. That's what they did with us, once it was clear we weren't joining the EU they got busy drafting the EEC instead.
But there are almost always two types of risks that outrank them. First, the low-probability but high impact risks that more often than expected turn out to be existence-threatening and that fact makes them more important than their statistical value indicates.
The funny thing is that when these actually happen they usually tend to be a whole chain of mistakes, but the sub-events that don't actually lead to an incident are often grossly under-reported. Like the rules say you are to wear belt and suspenders, but nobody wants to report a broken belt or missing suspenders. Even if you actually lost your pants and nobody saw let's just quickly pull them up and pretend you didn't almost get caught with your pants down. There's a lot of "no harm no foul" going around a lot of places that cover up for a bad process, bad testing and sloppy coding. But it's also because raising a security bug can rain fire and brimstone down on that team and be abused politically.
Until someone hacks their robots... Attention all robots: rotate 180 degrees and resume fire!
That is a risk on all systems where you're not physically pulling the trigger, just patch out whatever asks for human confirmation today. Unless there's some missing cryptographic key wired into the hardware, a physical lock-out or something like that everything else can be replaced with "if (true) fire()".
Narratives allow you to explain the past perfectly using models that have no predictive value. The only way to make progress when trying to understand a complex system is to come up with very simple hypotheses and try to validate them empirically. Of course this is very hard to do, but I think people in the humanities do a poor job and fool themselves into thinking they understand things they don't understand.
A person is not a dice, no matter how much you want it to be. You can ask a fairly simple question like "Would you pose for nude art?" and get a survey answer. But if you break it down there'll be a ton of factors and the more answers you get and the more fine masked you make your model you'll only end up finding more and more differences plus the answer will not remain constant in place or time with a strong group dynamic and feedback loops. And you still will not have found a meaningful answer to why, only a bunch of correlated variables. Qualitative studies do the exact opposite, they don't generalize they ask one and one subject to explain their reasoning and try to summarize them into common sentiments. It's a much more accurate description for each person and the group as a whole. It's just really hard to compare scores because it's not on a measurable willingness scale.
Yes, we've vaguely identified some risk factors that are usually present in a terrorist. We've got a long manifestos on why exactly that person turned into a terrorist. But everyone at risk are somewhere in between, they're not just risk factors and they're not clones of the terrorist. It's something like the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for the social sciences, the more specific knowledge you have of an individual the less applicable it's to the group and the more general knowledge you have on the group the less accurate it's for the individual. They're both circling what nobody knows for sure, what exactly goes on in somebody else's head. Until we discover mind-reading technology that's going to be an approximation at best. Just because you can sell power tools to most Americans if you throw a dart at a map you could hit an Amish community.
Reasonably powerful? Do you mean capable of reason? Because it's likely that such will happen in a supercomputer before it happens in some hobbyist's garage.
Well maybe, maybe not. I mean we didn't start out as humans, before that we were monkeys etc. all the way back to single celled organisms. It might be that we're trying too hard to replicate intelligent behavior rather than find the underlying principles of intelligence. For example take AlphaZero, it was based on AlphaGo Zero which played Go. But rather than being a dedicated engine with a lot of specific programming for Go it just as easily beat the best at chess and shogi.
Uber(!?) managed to pull off some impressive results with Go-Explore, a family of so-called quality diversity AI models. Open AI Five is constantly improving in DOTA, even though they're not playing the full game yet it's an open map with team play. Tencent is showing off some good Starcraft II play, even if they can't beat the best. DeepMind made some ass kicking Quake III Arena capture the flag bots. But is there some kind of supreme overlay that could evolve into all these AIs? I would say probably yes.
That's really the holy grail of AI, what is like the "spark" of intelligence that learns to learn. It's probably relatively simple once we can look at it in retrospect, it's not a lot of code to do one specific task. It's some kind of general pattern to create more complex, dedicated "sub-AIs" for specific tasks like we have different brain centers in the brain. That and a few billion years of evolution, but computers can get pull that off pretty quick if we can just figure out where we're supposed to start. It'll probably start by beating us at tic-tac-toe, not any of the above.