The world has many, many large lakes. But few have claims of a monster, and none are so famous as Nessie. It's a local industry, like all the shops around Roswell selling plastic aliens.
Now try to detect them through a layer of bone, which is a pretty good insulator, and skin. What you get correlates roughly, but you can't localise the source of a signal. It's very hard just to get out enough to control a mouse cursor. Slowly and awkwardly. With enough practice you'll be typing at minutes per word.
It's a moral thing. Look at it in the same way they do:
Giving your money willingly to help another is a good act and makes you a better person.
The government coming and stealing your stuff to give to someone else does not make you a better person, and is nothing but legalised thuggery.
The money has to be given freely, otherwise it doesn't score morality-points. You don't get credit for an act you were forced into. Worse, if the government takes your money that means you can't then voluntarily donate it to a charity - which means they have deprived you of your chance to up your score.
Most will leave when asked. Any that refuse are now trespassing and the police can be called in to remove them by force. This threat is enough to make sure that most will leave when asked, because staying is only going to result in a police baton to the face.
Or it might simply be for PR. Amazon has some land, they have intent to use it for something profitable in a year but until then it's just sitting idle. A homeless shelter costs almost nothing to run and makes the company look really ethically-driven, which means public goodwill and thus both higher sales and more political influence when lobbying. It's a good investment. They can quietly close it down in a year when it's time to build whatever business structure they have planned.
Not just government officials. Lots of non-government wealthy hiding their riches too, for tax purposes. You're just not hearing about them because the papers are not publicly available - they were sent to a few media organisations who are still reading through them and revealing only what they deem to be in the public interest, which usually means politicians. Ian Cameron, for example, was revealed to have secret accounts worth many millions of pounds - the exact amount not being entirely clear - though he never held any political office. His accounts were revealed because, though he wasn't a politician, his son is currently Prime Minister and inherited the accounts that his father set up.
There's more to conservatism than fiscal policy. I read right-wing media, and they often regard benefits as a moral problem, because they come from taxation. It's the government saying 'I'm going to steal your stuff and gunpoint and give it to someone who did nothing to deserve it.' They admit homelessness is a problem, but the protestant work ethic makes it clear that giving someone resources they didn't work for is out of the question - unfair to the giver and degrading to the recipient. It's quite common to see benefits described as 'government slavery' because it deprives people of the dignity of work and independence. Rather than redistribution, the conservative approach to poverty is to increase jobs by removing all the regulations that hold back industry - like environmental protection laws, the minimum wage, mandatory employment benefits, health and safety regulations, and so on. This will then create lots of new jobs. Not good jobs, they admit that, but a person working twelve-hour shifts packing boxes and making just enough to live hand-to-mouth is still a person living independently and free of government control, which is morally far preferable to a person living in benefit slavery off of the hard work of other people.
It doesn't need to be a security hole. It just needs to be some way, any way, to make Firefox connect without using the Tor proxy. All it takes is one obscure call in javascript somewhere that ignores the proxy settings.
Or another question worth asking: What percentage of the population can get through a typical week without committing a crime?
When the law reaches a level of complexity such that it's impossible not to break it, and we're relying on police to make the call of which crimes are worth the cost of investigating and prosecuting, it's not surprising that many people lose all respect for the law and come to regard law enforcement not as their protectors, but as a potential threat.
It's not just firefox - browsers in general have a poor history of security, because they have grown over the years from simple page-rendering engines to instruments of almost unmanageable complexity. The more complex the program, the more flaws it will contain. This is why Lynx so rarely has security issues - because it doesn't actually do very much.
She's not just a Christian, she's a libertarian. Devoted libertarians have to reject the possibility of climate change because, if it were actually true, there would be no option but to impose invasive and restrictive government regulations to reduce the severity. Something that libertarians cannot accept.
Actual bathroom operation: 1. Quickly run your hand under some water with a little soap, because you want to be finished as quickly as possible. 2. Mop up the water off your hands.
The typical person in a restroom wants to get out quickly. Thoroughly washing hands takes far too long - they probably had a quick rub with soap and a run under the tap, no more.
They are when it's impossible to run a pirate server without utilising a lot of material to which Blizzard owns the copyright. Even if the software is entirely rewritten, it cannot function without the level maps.
It's not just about control, it's about keeping options open. That abandoned MMO might seem worthless right now, but what if the company wants to relaunch it in future, or if another company offers to purchase the copyright so they can launch their own, or if there might one day be a studio willing to make a movie based on it?
And if it had been a republican in office, they'd have done the same. The DMCA was a required law to meet obligations under a WIPO treaty, and as copyright law was a subject of approximately zero public awareness at the time (and barely more than that now) neither side had any reason to resist the influence of the entertainment industry - a sector both politically influential and generous with campaign contributions.
There won't be much left of connections after CLARITY is done. If you want that, I think the only way you're getting it is measuring activity in a living brain. Time to crack open some rodents and wire them up.
The first uploaded organism is already done. It's a worm. It actually a composite of several worms - C. elegans has the useful feature of every individual being absolutely identical in cell layout.
Interestingly, it swims just fine without neurons. Basic motion seems to be a function of muscle cells alone - the nervous system just determines where to go.
That's easy: You just erase the used net after each computation and copy it back from the known-good state.
I don't think they want a brain simulation, skimming through. It looks more like they want a specialised neural net, but don't know how to build one. So they are mapping a chunk of brain and will try to figure out how it works, and use the knowledge thus gained as a guide for creating specialised artificial networks for visual processing.
Such a law would have to be carefully worded. It's easy to slip from 'reasonable accommodation' into 'I'm going to do something disruptive to the business or the public and you can't stop me.' We had a case in the UK a few years back involving a Muslim taxi driver who considered it against their religion to have any 'unclean' animal enter his vehicle - including guide dogs, so he was refusing service to the blind. Legal action was taken, he lost, but you can see how easily a conflict arises. What about, for example, an employee in the food industry that refuses to wear the approved hygiene equipment because it would require removing their religiously-compelled clothing? Or an actress who asks that every character she plays be rewritten so she won't have to appear with her face unveiled? Or someone who works as a truck driver, but one day announces they will no longer drive any vehicle containing beef products?
This is a fundamental problem with religious freedom: It's a diverse as religion, which means there are millions of different sects all with their own strange and quirky rules. Some understandable, some arbitrary, some silly, and some outright dangerous to their practitioners or to other people.
The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Slavery was abolished a bit before that. The purpose of the civil rights act was to end segregation.
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion - but the people screaming about 'bathroom bills' would be even more horrified if they lost their precious religious right to defy the law any time the voices in their head tell them to.
Slashdot Mirror
The world has many, many large lakes. But few have claims of a monster, and none are so famous as Nessie. It's a local industry, like all the shops around Roswell selling plastic aliens.
The brain produces millivolt signals.
Now try to detect them through a layer of bone, which is a pretty good insulator, and skin. What you get correlates roughly, but you can't localise the source of a signal. It's very hard just to get out enough to control a mouse cursor. Slowly and awkwardly. With enough practice you'll be typing at minutes per word.
It's a moral thing. Look at it in the same way they do:
Giving your money willingly to help another is a good act and makes you a better person.
The government coming and stealing your stuff to give to someone else does not make you a better person, and is nothing but legalised thuggery.
The money has to be given freely, otherwise it doesn't score morality-points. You don't get credit for an act you were forced into. Worse, if the government takes your money that means you can't then voluntarily donate it to a charity - which means they have deprived you of your chance to up your score.
Most will leave when asked. Any that refuse are now trespassing and the police can be called in to remove them by force. This threat is enough to make sure that most will leave when asked, because staying is only going to result in a police baton to the face.
Or it might simply be for PR. Amazon has some land, they have intent to use it for something profitable in a year but until then it's just sitting idle. A homeless shelter costs almost nothing to run and makes the company look really ethically-driven, which means public goodwill and thus both higher sales and more political influence when lobbying. It's a good investment. They can quietly close it down in a year when it's time to build whatever business structure they have planned.
Not just government officials. Lots of non-government wealthy hiding their riches too, for tax purposes. You're just not hearing about them because the papers are not publicly available - they were sent to a few media organisations who are still reading through them and revealing only what they deem to be in the public interest, which usually means politicians. Ian Cameron, for example, was revealed to have secret accounts worth many millions of pounds - the exact amount not being entirely clear - though he never held any political office. His accounts were revealed because, though he wasn't a politician, his son is currently Prime Minister and inherited the accounts that his father set up.
There's more to conservatism than fiscal policy. I read right-wing media, and they often regard benefits as a moral problem, because they come from taxation. It's the government saying 'I'm going to steal your stuff and gunpoint and give it to someone who did nothing to deserve it.' They admit homelessness is a problem, but the protestant work ethic makes it clear that giving someone resources they didn't work for is out of the question - unfair to the giver and degrading to the recipient. It's quite common to see benefits described as 'government slavery' because it deprives people of the dignity of work and independence. Rather than redistribution, the conservative approach to poverty is to increase jobs by removing all the regulations that hold back industry - like environmental protection laws, the minimum wage, mandatory employment benefits, health and safety regulations, and so on. This will then create lots of new jobs. Not good jobs, they admit that, but a person working twelve-hour shifts packing boxes and making just enough to live hand-to-mouth is still a person living independently and free of government control, which is morally far preferable to a person living in benefit slavery off of the hard work of other people.
It doesn't need to be a security hole. It just needs to be some way, any way, to make Firefox connect without using the Tor proxy. All it takes is one obscure call in javascript somewhere that ignores the proxy settings.
Or another question worth asking: What percentage of the population can get through a typical week without committing a crime?
When the law reaches a level of complexity such that it's impossible not to break it, and we're relying on police to make the call of which crimes are worth the cost of investigating and prosecuting, it's not surprising that many people lose all respect for the law and come to regard law enforcement not as their protectors, but as a potential threat.
It's not just firefox - browsers in general have a poor history of security, because they have grown over the years from simple page-rendering engines to instruments of almost unmanageable complexity. The more complex the program, the more flaws it will contain. This is why Lynx so rarely has security issues - because it doesn't actually do very much.
She's not just a Christian, she's a libertarian. Devoted libertarians have to reject the possibility of climate change because, if it were actually true, there would be no option but to impose invasive and restrictive government regulations to reduce the severity. Something that libertarians cannot accept.
Key management is a headache though.
Actual bathroom operation:
1. Quickly run your hand under some water with a little soap, because you want to be finished as quickly as possible.
2. Mop up the water off your hands.
The typical person in a restroom wants to get out quickly. Thoroughly washing hands takes far too long - they probably had a quick rub with soap and a run under the tap, no more.
It almost always is - the exception is if you have a urinary tract infection. It can be used as an emergency antiseptic.
They are when it's impossible to run a pirate server without utilising a lot of material to which Blizzard owns the copyright. Even if the software is entirely rewritten, it cannot function without the level maps.
It's not just about control, it's about keeping options open. That abandoned MMO might seem worthless right now, but what if the company wants to relaunch it in future, or if another company offers to purchase the copyright so they can launch their own, or if there might one day be a studio willing to make a movie based on it?
And if it had been a republican in office, they'd have done the same. The DMCA was a required law to meet obligations under a WIPO treaty, and as copyright law was a subject of approximately zero public awareness at the time (and barely more than that now) neither side had any reason to resist the influence of the entertainment industry - a sector both politically influential and generous with campaign contributions.
There won't be much left of connections after CLARITY is done. If you want that, I think the only way you're getting it is measuring activity in a living brain. Time to crack open some rodents and wire them up.
The first uploaded organism is already done. It's a worm. It actually a composite of several worms - C. elegans has the useful feature of every individual being absolutely identical in cell layout.
Here's the worm having been Matrixed into a simulated body and environment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Interestingly, it swims just fine without neurons. Basic motion seems to be a function of muscle cells alone - the nervous system just determines where to go.
Imaging is only the first step. The real problem is making sense of the data you get.
The sticks are getting more sophisticated. Progress is painfully slow, but still progress.
That's easy: You just erase the used net after each computation and copy it back from the known-good state.
I don't think they want a brain simulation, skimming through. It looks more like they want a specialised neural net, but don't know how to build one. So they are mapping a chunk of brain and will try to figure out how it works, and use the knowledge thus gained as a guide for creating specialised artificial networks for visual processing.
Such a law would have to be carefully worded. It's easy to slip from 'reasonable accommodation' into 'I'm going to do something disruptive to the business or the public and you can't stop me.' We had a case in the UK a few years back involving a Muslim taxi driver who considered it against their religion to have any 'unclean' animal enter his vehicle - including guide dogs, so he was refusing service to the blind. Legal action was taken, he lost, but you can see how easily a conflict arises. What about, for example, an employee in the food industry that refuses to wear the approved hygiene equipment because it would require removing their religiously-compelled clothing? Or an actress who asks that every character she plays be rewritten so she won't have to appear with her face unveiled? Or someone who works as a truck driver, but one day announces they will no longer drive any vehicle containing beef products?
This is a fundamental problem with religious freedom: It's a diverse as religion, which means there are millions of different sects all with their own strange and quirky rules. Some understandable, some arbitrary, some silly, and some outright dangerous to their practitioners or to other people.
The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Slavery was abolished a bit before that. The purpose of the civil rights act was to end segregation.
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion - but the people screaming about 'bathroom bills' would be even more horrified if they lost their precious religious right to defy the law any time the voices in their head tell them to.