Cool. Image recognition is far further along than I thought. It makes the same type of mistakes as humans although in a different way. We humans see faces in everything. Smoke, clouds and static for example. This just means that this is inherent in the attempt of recognition.
That is because computer vision is not yet good enough. However, Google's rotating laser costs $70,000. Just the laser, you still have to pay for the car under it.
While large scale production would be able to lower that significantly it might be better to start with a $100 camera and a $1000 neural net computer.
In strength it is both. Graphene is incredibly strong for a one atom thick material. All other materials need far more layers of atoms to achieve the same strength. However: it is a one atom thick material. That means it doesn't have much absolute strength. And the strength of graphene is non-uniform. It is far stronger in 2 directions than in the 3rd one
Why not both? Make a game that allows you to use cattle prods to prod files in the right folders and shoot them with a railgun to either add tags at or delete the file unrecoverable (difference based on the hash of the milisecond time. If the binary printout of that ends with a 1 it adds a tag. If it ends with a 0 it deletes)
I feel for you. That claim would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Have you send them this page or something similar and the question whether their sw also protect against those?
Sorry, you were talking about specific earthquake insurance. That should cover it, yes. However usually people only have home insurance and unless that is different in the US than in the Netherlands that usually excludes natural disasters.
He offers a reasonable alternative, although IMHO it isn't complete. There are 2 parts: 1. A label, "Safe to magnitude X" 2. A maximum on yearly rent raises based on that label.
Natural disasters are usually excluded. The gains are directly for the home owners. If they don't upgrade an earthquake would cause more cost because they'd have to pay for the rebuild cost.
That is, if the government doesn't step in and pay for it because the poor home owners can't because they have just lost everything due to an earthquake.
The treaty just doesn't define properly what torture is. This allowed the US to define it the way they did. And they didn't choose a reasonable definition. According to that they do not torture. Whether that holds up in any war tribunal will probably never be tested because the US is too mighty. They count on that.
Not really. Countries that haven't signed the treaties aren't officially bound by them. See it more as a formalization of what was thought to be just wrong. The countries that signed it formally declare that they aren't going to use it anymore.
In practice it is used as a handle to allow an incursion if these weapons are used. Even when the user hasn't signed the treaty. And I don't think that is wrong. Most weapons on that list (biological, chemical, incendiary and mines) are not specific. They can't see the difference between an aggressor and a civilian. The other two weapons (blinding and traceless) are because they are wrong in other ways. I don't feel as strong about them but apparently the people in Geneva did. The last part binds the parties to clear up their mess. In Vietnam people still die of the unexploded ordinance the US left there.
If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.
One man's freedom fighter is an other man's terrorist. The one who starts the war always feels he is moral. The one who is attacked always feels the attacker is not moral. Morality is not as black and white as it feels. There are always shades of grey. In the end the winner turns out to be moral and the loser turns out to be immoral. Not by an absolute difference in morality but because the winners get to write history. They tend to "forget" the parts where they were wrong. Did you know the US got into the 2nd world war because the Germans were attacking trade ships? They probably didn't like the genocide but trade was the straw that broke the heavily armed camel's back. Nowadays everybody seems to believe they helped because what Germany was doing was wrong. That is what writing history does.
You are reading it wrong. The laws of war prohibit using weapons with the purpose of blinding. The purpose of this is blowing stuff up.
Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Slashdot Mirror
Ob. XKCD
Cool. Image recognition is far further along than I thought. It makes the same type of mistakes as humans although in a different way.
We humans see faces in everything. Smoke, clouds and static for example. This just means that this is inherent in the attempt of recognition.
Just like we see faces in other images of static.
That is because computer vision is not yet good enough.
However, Google's rotating laser costs $70,000. Just the laser, you still have to pay for the car under it.
While large scale production would be able to lower that significantly it might be better to start with a $100 camera and a $1000 neural net computer.
The bodies of water appear to be made mostly of methane,
They are finishing things that SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STARTED.
Poe's law strikes again.
I thought the random delete/tag idea would give it away.
In strength it is both.
Graphene is incredibly strong for a one atom thick material. All other materials need far more layers of atoms to achieve the same strength.
However: it is a one atom thick material. That means it doesn't have much absolute strength.
And the strength of graphene is non-uniform. It is far stronger in 2 directions than in the 3rd one
That's what the remote with off button is for.
Why not both? Make a game that allows you to use cattle prods to prod files in the right folders and shoot them with a railgun to either add tags at or delete the file unrecoverable (difference based on the hash of the milisecond time. If the binary printout of that ends with a 1 it adds a tag. If it ends with a 0 it deletes)
A crate of beer for a modpoint. I'd offer a kingdom but I already paid that for a modpoint last mont.
Oops.
Bromine.
For other reasons, none of the metals with a halflife of below a second would be advisable. Especially not for objects as large as this.
If you want to get technical both mercury and bromine would work fine, assuming your 3d printer is in a freezer.
Not that I would want an implant made of any of those metals.
Please do call it Blade Runner 2. The nonsense of muddying up the sequence of films by not doing that is irritating.
Sleep regulators like in Fifth Element would improve upon comparability.
I feel for you. That claim would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Have you send them this page or something similar and the question whether their sw also protect against those?
Sorry, you were talking about specific earthquake insurance. That should cover it, yes. However usually people only have home insurance and unless that is different in the US than in the Netherlands that usually excludes natural disasters.
He offers a reasonable alternative, although IMHO it isn't complete. There are 2 parts:
1. A label, "Safe to magnitude X"
2. A maximum on yearly rent raises based on that label.
Natural disasters are usually excluded.
The gains are directly for the home owners. If they don't upgrade an earthquake would cause more cost because they'd have to pay for the rebuild cost.
That is, if the government doesn't step in and pay for it because the poor home owners can't because they have just lost everything due to an earthquake.
Why would the mayor need to learn that? I think you mean Connie_Lingus.
And those are illegal to countries who signed the Geneva Convention.
The treaty just doesn't define properly what torture is. This allowed the US to define it the way they did. And they didn't choose a reasonable definition.
According to that they do not torture.
Whether that holds up in any war tribunal will probably never be tested because the US is too mighty. They count on that.
raising the bar of entry
Not really. Countries that haven't signed the treaties aren't officially bound by them.
See it more as a formalization of what was thought to be just wrong. The countries that signed it formally declare that they aren't going to use it anymore.
In practice it is used as a handle to allow an incursion if these weapons are used. Even when the user hasn't signed the treaty.
And I don't think that is wrong. Most weapons on that list (biological, chemical, incendiary and mines) are not specific. They can't see the difference between an aggressor and a civilian.
The other two weapons (blinding and traceless) are because they are wrong in other ways. I don't feel as strong about them but apparently the people in Geneva did.
The last part binds the parties to clear up their mess. In Vietnam people still die of the unexploded ordinance the US left there.
If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.
One man's freedom fighter is an other man's terrorist.
The one who starts the war always feels he is moral. The one who is attacked always feels the attacker is not moral.
Morality is not as black and white as it feels. There are always shades of grey.
In the end the winner turns out to be moral and the loser turns out to be immoral. Not by an absolute difference in morality but because the winners get to write history. They tend to "forget" the parts where they were wrong. Did you know the US got into the 2nd world war because the Germans were attacking trade ships? They probably didn't like the genocide but trade was the straw that broke the heavily armed camel's back. Nowadays everybody seems to believe they helped because what Germany was doing was wrong. That is what writing history does.
You are reading it wrong. The laws of war prohibit using weapons with the purpose of blinding. The purpose of this is blowing stuff up.
Article 3
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
For the moment it is more like mounting the sharks to the lasers.