Governments will pay them for consultancy if the research finds a viable solution. Eventually there might be some nice contracts to run the system too.
There are exceptions to both the 1st and 2nd and the judge seems to be saying that this is one of them.
For example, you can't publish or even speak material that the government deems to be a state secret. You can't build or own certain weapons, even for your own private defence.
Ad-hominin. Nice. For the record, the person you are replying to is right. Because they were not triggered by seeing my username they were able to correctly interpret my post.
A room full of armed people trying to locate a shooter and stop them... They would be mistaking each other for the killer, missing and hitting bystanders. I really doubt it would have made things better.
Ebooks are an entirely new business model. Indefinite rentals that limit your ability to resell or lend them. Consumers trade those defects for convenience.
A lot of the alternative coins are designed to be difficult to mine with an ASIC. The most common technique is to increase the memory requirements. You can attach memory to an ASIC, but it's hard and expensive to match the bandwidth of a GPU.
Also Google has a track record of securing their voice input. They are more transparent too - you can listen to everything it's ever listened to by logging in to your account.
Their devices have a button that can activate them so they don't have to be listening all the time either.
Moving the goalposts again. Now your requirement is an award for an individual work that had nothing to do with women at all... Because that's a rational standard to judge an award for creativity by.
I dunno, they gave best comic to The Mighty Thor. You know, the one that made Thor a woman.
Seriously though, the Dragon Awards are kinda suspect. The first year the results matched the suggestions put forward by Vox Day, the guy who attacked the Hugo awards, perfectly. The voting system is easily rigged and the results seem more driven by opposition to the Hugo's than anything else.
Okay I'll give you the real answer. You won't like it though.
First, men did win this year, it even mentions some of them in the summary. Lots of nominations too.
But the more important thing is that there isn't an obvious systemic problem here. If there was you know I'd be first to point it out. This year is exceptional.
There needs to be a trend or evidence of some specific issue for there to be a problem.
Zak's award seems more like pity. The director saved the movie, he can't write for shit and everything else he has done was either a flop or so-bad-it's-good.
Men just aren't interested in reading/writing. They prefer visual arts like movies. It's biological or something. Dude wrote a memo about it, maybe you missed it because it didn't get much publicity.
Problem is the places that need them the most are the places that you don't want to have them. The developing world, the countries you don't want to be developing nuclear programmes or handling dangerous reactors. I mean, even the developed nations can barely manage that, even if you aren't worried about proliferation. One of those would make a great dirty bomb.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is more permanent than 3-5 years because that's how often governments change.
Sensible countries have controls on the basic cost of living. Rent, utilities, food etc.
Governments will pay them for consultancy if the research finds a viable solution. Eventually there might be some nice contracts to run the system too.
There are exceptions to both the 1st and 2nd and the judge seems to be saying that this is one of them.
For example, you can't publish or even speak material that the government deems to be a state secret. You can't build or own certain weapons, even for your own private defence.
I've noticed that Forbes puts out a lot of bullshit articles like this. Not just biased or whatever, they actively go out of their way to mislead.
Ad-hominin. Nice. For the record, the person you are replying to is right. Because they were not triggered by seeing my username they were able to correctly interpret my post.
I was going to refute this but then I realised it's just what-about-ism and not worth the effort.
A room full of armed people trying to locate a shooter and stop them... They would be mistaking each other for the killer, missing and hitting bystanders. I really doubt it would have made things better.
So they should have fitted metal detectors and checked bags of people entering.
None of this sounds very appealing. Either accept that kind of intrusion in your daily life or carry a gun routinely with all that that entails.
Not being armed doesn't make you helpless, especially if in all likelihood the attacker won't have a gun either.
It's a non issue though.
To exploit this an attacker would need to unlock and get root on the device. If they can do that you are screwed anyway.
Was this a gun free zone?
If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there? If it wasn't, how come the good guys with guns didn't save everyone?
Seriously, how is this supposed to work?
Not saying I want one, but it's better than having no access to that data.
Or turn voice history off and use the button for maximum privacy.
Ebooks are an entirely new business model. Indefinite rentals that limit your ability to resell or lend them. Consumers trade those defects for convenience.
A lot of the alternative coins are designed to be difficult to mine with an ASIC. The most common technique is to increase the memory requirements. You can attach memory to an ASIC, but it's hard and expensive to match the bandwidth of a GPU.
Also Google has a track record of securing their voice input. They are more transparent too - you can listen to everything it's ever listened to by logging in to your account.
Their devices have a button that can activate them so they don't have to be listening all the time either.
Jeez someone's sense of humour is broken. The moderation system needs an overhaul.
Moving the goalposts again. Now your requirement is an award for an individual work that had nothing to do with women at all... Because that's a rational standard to judge an award for creativity by.
Just looking at the 2017 result I see:
Peter Newman
Michael Damian Thomas
Terry McDonough
Hawk Ostby
Mark Fergus
Denis Villeneuve
Eric Heisserer
And that's excluding Ted Chiang because of your arbitrary "white" clause.
Did you think I wouldn't check?
I dunno, they gave best comic to The Mighty Thor. You know, the one that made Thor a woman.
Seriously though, the Dragon Awards are kinda suspect. The first year the results matched the suggestions put forward by Vox Day, the guy who attacked the Hugo awards, perfectly. The voting system is easily rigged and the results seem more driven by opposition to the Hugo's than anything else.
Also, Fortnight, really?
Okay I'll give you the real answer. You won't like it though.
First, men did win this year, it even mentions some of them in the summary. Lots of nominations too.
But the more important thing is that there isn't an obvious systemic problem here. If there was you know I'd be first to point it out. This year is exceptional.
There needs to be a trend or evidence of some specific issue for there to be a problem.
Told you that you wouldn't like it.
Zak's award seems more like pity. The director saved the movie, he can't write for shit and everything else he has done was either a flop or so-bad-it's-good.
Men just aren't interested in reading/writing. They prefer visual arts like movies. It's biological or something. Dude wrote a memo about it, maybe you missed it because it didn't get much publicity.
Problem is the places that need them the most are the places that you don't want to have them. The developing world, the countries you don't want to be developing nuclear programmes or handling dangerous reactors. I mean, even the developed nations can barely manage that, even if you aren't worried about proliferation. One of those would make a great dirty bomb.
Don't forget the CO2 emissions. Nuclear is right up there, it's not a solution to CO2 emissions at all.