On what grounds would you sue? Facebook's collection of data isn't illegal. As far as anyone has said, no laws were broken during the election. Being a platform that allows one person to digitally stalk another person is protected by law -- it's the stalker to blame, not the platform. Overall, I'm not sure that there's any lawsuit that could be used to limit Facebook's activities. Regulations are often what provide civil suits with a basis to proceed. At the moment, we don't have any of those.
I was looking at trying to defend an individual from targeted attack... in that case, the front line is the region around the "person of interest" where the two drone clouds would encounter each other. If everyone is a "person of interest" then that means every individual person who wants to survive in that environment is a combatant who maintains her/his own defense region. To attack everyone would require spending as much as everyone spends on defense (or vice versa: survival requires a defender spend as much as the attacker spends on offense). We all have immune systems against viruses. We will each need an immune system against drones... possibly very small drones. It remains symmetric, unlike bio/chem/nuke weapons where the spending on defense must be massively higher than the spending on offense, if it can even be done.
Is it asymmetric? If they have a whole cloud of drones, you can defend against it with your own cloud of drones. And if you build your own cloud of drones, that cloud can also be used for offense. Asymmetric, as I understand it, is when you have to spend a lot on defense and it doesn't buy you any offense. This is more symmetric because it is really just like equalizing soldiers on a battlefield. If they have 10 drones and you have 10 drones, you can fight them to a standstill. But if you have 100 drones, you can overpower their numbers. Defense is achieved by spending the same amount of money that your opponent spent... that's symmetry.
Because the downside for women to report the problem is so steep -- politics of personal destruction -- that the stakes on the other side have to be equally grave to motivate reporting. Most women who report this stuff get treated like pariahs, whether they report it 20 years late or at the time that it happened. They are subjected to a wide range of humiliations. As much as it hurts, they find a way to move on rather than make a fuss when the probability of the guy being punished is minimal. That calculus is changing, but for the cases you mentioned, it was a sane decision.
That's why Stallman says "open source" is only the FIRST STEP. Being open means you can even know that it is spyware. The second step is that it has to be open to edits so you can replace the parts you don't like. And if you aren't a programmer, that's ok, there's probably someone who is who is just as upset about the spyware and will write you a (hopefully also open-and-free) tool to fix that part of the code for you.
Why? Phrasing it this way is perfectly cromulent. And it follows good "inverted pyramid" journalistic style by putting the most important information first. Sure, you could do it with extra quote marks instead of the colon, but the communication is just as clear this way. Purpose served.
If there are bugs that affect 1% of your user base, and you fixed those because they were loudly chirping to you or because it was easy to fix, but you don't really want to panic the rest of your user base by implying the bug is a big deal, I can easily see, "Fixes a rarely encountered bug" without getting into details. I think the rules are different for consumer software than for corporate software -- with commercial software, the upgrade notes are as much or more about brand building as they are about technical content.
If the currency draws more power than makes it worth it, then it starts requiring less power to validate transactions. More importantly, if the transactions can't cost X amount of power, it implies there isn't enough power for the hospitals anyway -- that's when the economy would be contracting, perhaps collapsing because we've run out of resources to sustain that level of life. The math behind the cryptocurrencies tries to take such things into account. We don't know if it'll work out, but that's the theory.
You're talking about the government's *choice* to perform that replication and its control of the inflation cycle. That was definitely possible when the currency was backed by gold. It's called "devaluing the currency." Even when there was actual gold in the currency, the government could produce more by acquiring more gold. And there was the continuous threat of additional money being created by others finding gold. That's a serious problem for a stable economy... it can easily result in the currency becoming worthless from insufficient scarcity. The substance doesn't have value.
I was talking about counterfeiting, literally the ability to physically create the currency. It isn't easy for the government to replicate. They run huge machines, procure rare paper and ink. They put lots of energy into replicating those dollars and coins. The backing substance of the currency, whether metal or fiat, has nothing to do with its ability to counterfeit it.
You'll burn through your coins doing that... you have to pay the transaction costs. If the miners think your transaction payment is too low, they don't have to accept your transaction. If you aren't adding value somewhere, the system will eventually drain you dry.
No. This isn't stupidity. This is exactly the kind of optimization of resources that humans are extremely good at and that nature does through evolutionary trial-and-error.
Bingo! And that's why the cryptocurrencies are gaining strength... they finally equate the relative value of the currency to the strength of the global marketplace, and the role of the Federal Reserve is replaced by the cooperative of miners.
A thing can only be used as currency if it is expensive to replicate and its source can be controlled by a reliable producer. The US dollar is hard to replicate, and every few years the "proof of work" has to be increased to keep ahead of people who figure out how to replicate it. With cryptocurrencies, we have a new "proof of work" to show that the coin is authentic.
FALSE. It does produce something: confidence in value. If it takes megawatts of energy to create the coin, then it cannot be counterfeited without similar input of megawatts of energy. All that power is providing the basis that lets us have confidence in the value of the transactions. If you look at physical currency, you will see that bills and coins are designed to prevent counterfeiting by increasing the amount of work needed to simulate one. This is just the logical step -- if any physical object can be replicated in the future, then we need a way to prevent counterfeiting that goes beyond physical construction. Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies provide that.
If you want a dumb currency, pick the US penny -- costs more to produce than it is worth. Bitcoin doesn't have that problem, at least, not in the current energy market, and if energy were to get cheaper, the cost of work would shift.
Trust is cheap... confidence is expensive to produce, it turns out.
Hm... I suppose if we found a way to use gold in a nuclear reactor, we could use that energy to power a bitcoin setup, then we could measure its value in TFOs. I can see how your idea would work. How's the nuclear research coming?
I've seen several forums talking about the need for cloud-connected cameras such that every time you take a photo, the image, the user ID, GPS coordinates, and timestamp are added to some blockchain for certification. Any later re-touching/editing is then checked in as a transaction so that the entire "chain of evidence" is preserved in a public record. To me, it seems that something like that is the only way we're going to be able to trust any recording in the future -- or the present, really, since this tech plus the audio tech earlier this year are now "in the wild."
It's a gigantic deal if they didn't know they were unregistered and then they show up at the polls and are told "Sorry, registration closed six weeks ago." The story says that people are unregistered without being informed.
I donâ(TM)t understand one point. If hurricanes are getting stronger, wouldnâ(TM)t tropical storms get stronger also, thus pushing more of them into hurricane status? That would result in more hurricanes. Or is hurricane strength implemented with a byte so it rolls over at 256 mph?
Slashdot Mirror
Who says he/she/it has no connections and money behind them?
On what grounds would you sue? Facebook's collection of data isn't illegal. As far as anyone has said, no laws were broken during the election. Being a platform that allows one person to digitally stalk another person is protected by law -- it's the stalker to blame, not the platform. Overall, I'm not sure that there's any lawsuit that could be used to limit Facebook's activities. Regulations are often what provide civil suits with a basis to proceed. At the moment, we don't have any of those.
I was looking at trying to defend an individual from targeted attack... in that case, the front line is the region around the "person of interest" where the two drone clouds would encounter each other. If everyone is a "person of interest" then that means every individual person who wants to survive in that environment is a combatant who maintains her/his own defense region. To attack everyone would require spending as much as everyone spends on defense (or vice versa: survival requires a defender spend as much as the attacker spends on offense). We all have immune systems against viruses. We will each need an immune system against drones... possibly very small drones. It remains symmetric, unlike bio/chem/nuke weapons where the spending on defense must be massively higher than the spending on offense, if it can even be done.
Is it asymmetric? If they have a whole cloud of drones, you can defend against it with your own cloud of drones. And if you build your own cloud of drones, that cloud can also be used for offense. Asymmetric, as I understand it, is when you have to spend a lot on defense and it doesn't buy you any offense. This is more symmetric because it is really just like equalizing soldiers on a battlefield. If they have 10 drones and you have 10 drones, you can fight them to a standstill. But if you have 100 drones, you can overpower their numbers. Defense is achieved by spending the same amount of money that your opponent spent... that's symmetry.
Because the downside for women to report the problem is so steep -- politics of personal destruction -- that the stakes on the other side have to be equally grave to motivate reporting. Most women who report this stuff get treated like pariahs, whether they report it 20 years late or at the time that it happened. They are subjected to a wide range of humiliations. As much as it hurts, they find a way to move on rather than make a fuss when the probability of the guy being punished is minimal. That calculus is changing, but for the cases you mentioned, it was a sane decision.
That's why Stallman says "open source" is only the FIRST STEP. Being open means you can even know that it is spyware. The second step is that it has to be open to edits so you can replace the parts you don't like. And if you aren't a programmer, that's ok, there's probably someone who is who is just as upset about the spyware and will write you a (hopefully also open-and-free) tool to fix that part of the code for you.
Why? Phrasing it this way is perfectly cromulent. And it follows good "inverted pyramid" journalistic style by putting the most important information first. Sure, you could do it with extra quote marks instead of the colon, but the communication is just as clear this way. Purpose served.
If there are bugs that affect 1% of your user base, and you fixed those because they were loudly chirping to you or because it was easy to fix, but you don't really want to panic the rest of your user base by implying the bug is a big deal, I can easily see, "Fixes a rarely encountered bug" without getting into details. I think the rules are different for consumer software than for corporate software -- with commercial software, the upgrade notes are as much or more about brand building as they are about technical content.
I misread this as "all living in sin" (with an 'n') at first, which in the context of "isn't this equivalent to a god?" made weird amount of sense. :-)
If the currency draws more power than makes it worth it, then it starts requiring less power to validate transactions. More importantly, if the transactions can't cost X amount of power, it implies there isn't enough power for the hospitals anyway -- that's when the economy would be contracting, perhaps collapsing because we've run out of resources to sustain that level of life. The math behind the cryptocurrencies tries to take such things into account. We don't know if it'll work out, but that's the theory.
You're talking about the government's *choice* to perform that replication and its control of the inflation cycle. That was definitely possible when the currency was backed by gold. It's called "devaluing the currency." Even when there was actual gold in the currency, the government could produce more by acquiring more gold. And there was the continuous threat of additional money being created by others finding gold. That's a serious problem for a stable economy... it can easily result in the currency becoming worthless from insufficient scarcity. The substance doesn't have value.
I was talking about counterfeiting, literally the ability to physically create the currency. It isn't easy for the government to replicate. They run huge machines, procure rare paper and ink. They put lots of energy into replicating those dollars and coins. The backing substance of the currency, whether metal or fiat, has nothing to do with its ability to counterfeit it.
You'll burn through your coins doing that... you have to pay the transaction costs. If the miners think your transaction payment is too low, they don't have to accept your transaction. If you aren't adding value somewhere, the system will eventually drain you dry.
No. This isn't stupidity. This is exactly the kind of optimization of resources that humans are extremely good at and that nature does through evolutionary trial-and-error.
Bingo! And that's why the cryptocurrencies are gaining strength ... they finally equate the relative value of the currency to the strength of the global marketplace, and the role of the Federal Reserve is replaced by the cooperative of miners.
A thing can only be used as currency if it is expensive to replicate and its source can be controlled by a reliable producer. The US dollar is hard to replicate, and every few years the "proof of work" has to be increased to keep ahead of people who figure out how to replicate it. With cryptocurrencies, we have a new "proof of work" to show that the coin is authentic.
FALSE. It does produce something: confidence in value. If it takes megawatts of energy to create the coin, then it cannot be counterfeited without similar input of megawatts of energy. All that power is providing the basis that lets us have confidence in the value of the transactions. If you look at physical currency, you will see that bills and coins are designed to prevent counterfeiting by increasing the amount of work needed to simulate one. This is just the logical step -- if any physical object can be replicated in the future, then we need a way to prevent counterfeiting that goes beyond physical construction. Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies provide that.
If you want a dumb currency, pick the US penny -- costs more to produce than it is worth. Bitcoin doesn't have that problem, at least, not in the current energy market, and if energy were to get cheaper, the cost of work would shift.
Trust is cheap... confidence is expensive to produce, it turns out.
Hm... I suppose if we found a way to use gold in a nuclear reactor, we could use that energy to power a bitcoin setup, then we could measure its value in TFOs. I can see how your idea would work. How's the nuclear research coming?
As far as I can tell, a report qualifies as "massive" if a senator can read its contents aloud to extend a filibuster for more than 12 hours.
For maximum irony, someone should announce that this report from NVIDIA itself is a hoax. Then you really wouldn't know what to believe.
I've seen several forums talking about the need for cloud-connected cameras such that every time you take a photo, the image, the user ID, GPS coordinates, and timestamp are added to some blockchain for certification. Any later re-touching/editing is then checked in as a transaction so that the entire "chain of evidence" is preserved in a public record. To me, it seems that something like that is the only way we're going to be able to trust any recording in the future -- or the present, really, since this tech plus the audio tech earlier this year are now "in the wild."
It's a gigantic deal if they didn't know they were unregistered and then they show up at the polls and are told "Sorry, registration closed six weeks ago." The story says that people are unregistered without being informed.
Because plenty of other nations have bans on guns and don't have these shootings.
If those laws applied nationally so there wasnâ(TM)t an easy supply of guns nearby, maybe. We will never know.
I donâ(TM)t understand one point. If hurricanes are getting stronger, wouldnâ(TM)t tropical storms get stronger also, thus pushing more of them into hurricane status? That would result in more hurricanes. Or is hurricane strength implemented with a byte so it rolls over at 256 mph?
Florida and Puerto Rico can't bury most of their lines -- salt water flooding. Kansas is well above sea level.
It is a shorthand for all of the atoms residing in the same plane. It's a completely reasonable way to phrase it.