To be fair, a digitally-switching transistor is almost infinitely simpler than a neuron, but you could make the argument that a transistor configured in analog mode that summed several inputs and acted as a decision maker is much closer to a neuron. The trick is getting all of those transistors working together in some sort of "analog computer" fashion, as the brain's network reconfigures itself quite a bit, which is a lot harder to achieve at billion-scale on a die.
Using human neurons as a model for the future of computing might not be the utopia that we are all dreaming of....
because after 40 years in the military, getting a pension check means you're a "Taker".
There hasn't been any power in 70 years that has attempted or been remotely capable of overthrowing the sovereignty of US citizens over their own government.
So yes, your assumption is a safe one, the military the largest welfare organization in the US, and everyone knows it.
Yes, little more than freeloading scum. As opposed to all the government employed military welfare, government paid teaching unions, government quota taxi drivers, government guaranteed student loan payed university staff, government paid arrest-you-for-smoking-marijuana workers... Instead paying attention to the mooching class actually spending this tax money, and call the ones who work to earn it "freeloading scum".
I've heard of this happening as well. It's why I believe that the most important election anyone can vote in is for Judges. Judges decide what police are allowed to do and that will affect your life more than any Federal and even most State policies.
Depends on how silly the charge is. In the case in the article, it wasn't silly. Even if they threaten to arrest you, then you should still deny permission because a search can only hurt you.
The only real question remaining is whether to rely on the courts or vigilante justice to correct the police.
"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution." -- James Madison
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Plenty of countries would destroy the US in a direct war. North Korea, China, Iran are the three most prominent. Your statement should be "the US will never go to with a country that can defend itself." Which is why we will never go to war with the above countries.
It's not even fair to call what the US has been doing "war". When the other side doesn't hit back, it's just bullying. You can claim the US is a war when you have to worry about dying while eating dinner with your family. If the US were to attack a country that is willing to fight back, the illusion would end very quickly and be replaced with panic.
But this tends to be the result of people needed alpha leaders and looking for a singular scapegoat. It wouldn't have been any better if they had picked anyone else, it is simply away to avoid reasoning.
This story has been making the rounds since the weekend, and now slashdot gets around to it? No wonder this site is going into the toilet and readership drying up.
If that's what it takes to get the "gotta have the latest news RIGHT NOW!" crowd to leave, then I'm all for it.
Slaves aren't free to change jobs, so they aren't a counter example.
What about feudal serfs?
Feudal serfs aren't free to own land, so they aren't a counter example.
Or pre-unionized steel workers?
Steel was a monopolized industry (as are many natural resources), so steel workers aren't free to start their own steel industry, so they aren't a counter example.
Or the children working in textile factories?
Most of the countries you speak of, to start a factory you have to be friends with the local authorities, so there isn't freedom of competition there either. And an aside, we happen to have the highest (or close to it) teenage unemployment rate in the history of the world.
There are good counter examples to some common libertarian arguments, especially such as the scarcity of natural resources becoming more and more significant. However, the general libertarian argument that greater prosperity comes from greater freedom is still so historically well observed that counter-examples like the above fall apart after even the smallest amount of consideration.
With regard to this specific thread, placing more and more regulatory burdens on employers only serves to reduce the number of employers, which reduces the choices of the employees. Yes, it is possibly that there may be other artificial restrictions, such as the government-born monopolies that were mentioned above, on employers that make individual regulatory burdens less significant. But the better policy is to remove both obstructions, not to impose more.
Unless you consider Olber's Paradox, which is asks the question "why is it dark at night?". The simplest explanation is that the universe is finite. If it were in fact infinite, it would have to be decreasing in density faster than n^-1 (if my quick estimate of exponents is correct).
It still remains to establish that the California State Constitution enumerates the powers of regulation of education, which it almost certainly does. The tenth amendment doesn't enumerate state powers, it merely reserves them for the states to enumerate if they decide to.
There are something like 300mil+ people in the US. If Bush and Obama had never existed, 2 others who are exactly like them would have been voted into office and done the same thing.
What this person did doesn't require a lab, or anything that any of us don't have available. A strange sound was heard, and instead of going "hey I wonder what's on TV", the signal was sanitized, it's purpose guessed and then verified to be something understandable by anyone.
This isn't awesome because it accomplishes something. It's great because it was done for no reason at all. More stories like this please, and anyone who doesn't like it should find one of the million other websites that don't appreciate aimless-but-interesting tinkering.
Judges rule on matters of law, juries on facts of the case. If it's overturned by a judge, that means there was some legal problem with the first trial.
That depends on what State you are in. For example, in the State Georgia, it is explicitly written into the State Constitution that jurors may rule on matters of law as well.
My Commadore 64 booted instantly. Flip the switch and it was ready for commands. If you plugged a game cartidge into the back of the keyboard, it would boot to the program. Instantly.
Eight seconds is an eternity when your switches are flipping in nanoseconds.
Are they actually 6dan kgs? They don't play 6dans, they plan a small number of low dans at high handicap. Fuseki is one of the areas that Go programs are really bad at (unless you stay exactly within a limited Fuseki database), which the handicap artificially bypasses, and the abstractness of openings it is a pretty defining characteristic of Go. So I think claiming a rank of 6 dan is premature.
The idea that the government should "keep people in jail until they change what they believe" is terrifying.
No, we should NOT be judging people based on some arbitrary judges imagining whether they are likely to commit a crime in the future. Rehabilitation is a disgusting concept.
The idea that "whether or not a concept is being marketed should affect whether a patent is enforced or not" is wrong if anyone would bother to put even a small amount of thought into it. Counter example: What if you are selling it for a price that no one is willing to pay? Counter point: a NOVEL concept wouldn't be marketed anyway if the patent didn't exist. A little thought goes a long way.
The term "Patent Troll" is just a label that gets used to avoid dealing with the actual problems of patents. The problem is that things are being patented which shouldn't be. If only those things which deserve a patent were being patented, then no one would have a problem with a 3rd party defending patent rights. If divulging a concept is enough to warrant market exclusion, then it doesn't matter whether a first or third party is defending the compensation for the divulging, or whether or not that party is actually offering the concept for trade.
The ONLY purpose of the patent "reform" legislation is to make it impossible to challenge incumbent businesses. The only reform that would actually improve anything is a drastic (about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude) reduction of the number of patents being awarded.
The only thing that keeps the entire internet collapsing into a zombie frenzy of bots is private IP addresses. The inability to connect to the majority of hidden computers, and the fact that they can't operate (independently) as a server limiting their usefulness prevents almost all of the attacks that would otherwise occur and occur successfully. The state of the art of software development is not ready for ma and pa to have public computers, no matter how up to date your software is or how you try to virus protect it (haha virus protection what a joke). The fact that everyone is scared to death of installing any program made by anyone other than well-known-giant-corporation accounts for most of the of the catastrophe that is modern software.
So to answer to the forum topic, use a router and don't install software if you didn't look the developer in the eyes when you bought it.
Slashdot Mirror
Using human neurons as a model for the future of computing might not be the utopia that we are all dreaming of....
because after 40 years in the military, getting a pension check means you're a "Taker".
There hasn't been any power in 70 years that has attempted or been remotely capable of overthrowing the sovereignty of US citizens over their own government.
So yes, your assumption is a safe one, the military the largest welfare organization in the US, and everyone knows it.
Yes, little more than freeloading scum. As opposed to all the government employed military welfare, government paid teaching unions, government quota taxi drivers, government guaranteed student loan payed university staff, government paid arrest-you-for-smoking-marijuana workers... Instead paying attention to the mooching class actually spending this tax money, and call the ones who work to earn it "freeloading scum".
I've heard of this happening as well. It's why I believe that the most important election anyone can vote in is for Judges. Judges decide what police are allowed to do and that will affect your life more than any Federal and even most State policies.
They tried this in Florida for DUI checkpoints. Refusing a search was sufficient to make you "suspicious". They have a judge on site and everything.
http://www.attorneys.com/dui-d...
Depends on how silly the charge is. In the case in the article, it wasn't silly. Even if they threaten to arrest you, then you should still deny permission because a search can only hurt you.
The only real question remaining is whether to rely on the courts or vigilante justice to correct the police.
There's no right to view a video on the internet.
"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
-- James Madison
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Plenty of countries would destroy the US in a direct war. North Korea, China, Iran are the three most prominent. Your statement should be "the US will never go to with a country that can defend itself." Which is why we will never go to war with the above countries.
It's not even fair to call what the US has been doing "war". When the other side doesn't hit back, it's just bullying. You can claim the US is a war when you have to worry about dying while eating dinner with your family. If the US were to attack a country that is willing to fight back, the illusion would end very quickly and be replaced with panic.
But this tends to be the result of people needed alpha leaders and looking for a singular scapegoat. It wouldn't have been any better if they had picked anyone else, it is simply away to avoid reasoning.
This story has been making the rounds since the weekend, and now slashdot gets around to it?
No wonder this site is going into the toilet and readership drying up.
If that's what it takes to get the "gotta have the latest news RIGHT NOW!" crowd to leave, then I'm all for it.
Do you think slaves were happy?
Slaves aren't free to change jobs, so they aren't a counter example.
What about feudal serfs?
Feudal serfs aren't free to own land, so they aren't a counter example.
Or pre-unionized steel workers?
Steel was a monopolized industry (as are many natural resources), so steel workers aren't free to start their own steel industry, so they aren't a counter example.
Or the children working in textile factories?
Most of the countries you speak of, to start a factory you have to be friends with the local authorities, so there isn't freedom of competition there either. And an aside, we happen to have the highest (or close to it) teenage unemployment rate in the history of the world.
There are good counter examples to some common libertarian arguments, especially such as the scarcity of natural resources becoming more and more significant. However, the general libertarian argument that greater prosperity comes from greater freedom is still so historically well observed that counter-examples like the above fall apart after even the smallest amount of consideration.
With regard to this specific thread, placing more and more regulatory burdens on employers only serves to reduce the number of employers, which reduces the choices of the employees. Yes, it is possibly that there may be other artificial restrictions, such as the government-born monopolies that were mentioned above, on employers that make individual regulatory burdens less significant. But the better policy is to remove both obstructions, not to impose more.
The universe is most likely infinite.
Unless you consider Olber's Paradox, which is asks the question "why is it dark at night?". The simplest explanation is that the universe is finite. If it were in fact infinite, it would have to be decreasing in density faster than n^-1 (if my quick estimate of exponents is correct).
It still remains to establish that the California State Constitution enumerates the powers of regulation of education, which it almost certainly does. The tenth amendment doesn't enumerate state powers, it merely reserves them for the states to enumerate if they decide to.
There are something like 300mil+ people in the US. If Bush and Obama had never existed, 2 others who are exactly like them would have been voted into office and done the same thing.
The problem isn't Bush or Obama; keep looking.
What this person did doesn't require a lab, or anything that any of us don't have available. A strange sound was heard, and instead of going "hey I wonder what's on TV", the signal was sanitized, it's purpose guessed and then verified to be something understandable by anyone.
This isn't awesome because it accomplishes something. It's great because it was done for no reason at all. More stories like this please, and anyone who doesn't like it should find one of the million other websites that don't appreciate aimless-but-interesting tinkering.
... areas uninhabited and consisting of inhospitable jungle that were used by the NVA to move men and materiel.
...who were not a threat to the US at all...
Well, since the requests come with gag orders, what's your next rationalization?
Judges rule on matters of law, juries on facts of the case. If it's overturned by a judge, that means there was some legal problem with the first trial.
That depends on what State you are in. For example, in the State Georgia, it is explicitly written into the State Constitution that jurors may rule on matters of law as well.
My Commadore 64 booted instantly. Flip the switch and it was ready for commands. If you plugged a game cartidge into the back of the keyboard, it would boot to the program. Instantly.
Eight seconds is an eternity when your switches are flipping in nanoseconds.
Are they actually 6dan kgs? They don't play 6dans, they plan a small number of low dans at high handicap. Fuseki is one of the areas that Go programs are really bad at (unless you stay exactly within a limited Fuseki database), which the handicap artificially bypasses, and the abstractness of openings it is a pretty defining characteristic of Go. So I think claiming a rank of 6 dan is premature.
That sounds like the cost for those who don't have full time lawyers on payroll.
The workers in the sweatshop who put it there probably couldn't read English.
The idea that the government should "keep people in jail until they change what they believe" is terrifying.
No, we should NOT be judging people based on some arbitrary judges imagining whether they are likely to commit a crime in the future. Rehabilitation is a disgusting concept.
The idea that "whether or not a concept is being marketed should affect whether a patent is enforced or not" is wrong if anyone would bother to put even a small amount of thought into it. Counter example: What if you are selling it for a price that no one is willing to pay? Counter point: a NOVEL concept wouldn't be marketed anyway if the patent didn't exist. A little thought goes a long way.
The term "Patent Troll" is just a label that gets used to avoid dealing with the actual problems of patents. The problem is that things are being patented which shouldn't be. If only those things which deserve a patent were being patented, then no one would have a problem with a 3rd party defending patent rights. If divulging a concept is enough to warrant market exclusion, then it doesn't matter whether a first or third party is defending the compensation for the divulging, or whether or not that party is actually offering the concept for trade.
The ONLY purpose of the patent "reform" legislation is to make it impossible to challenge incumbent businesses. The only reform that would actually improve anything is a drastic (about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude) reduction of the number of patents being awarded.
The only thing that keeps the entire internet collapsing into a zombie frenzy of bots is private IP addresses. The inability to connect to the majority of hidden computers, and the fact that they can't operate (independently) as a server limiting their usefulness prevents almost all of the attacks that would otherwise occur and occur successfully. The state of the art of software development is not ready for ma and pa to have public computers, no matter how up to date your software is or how you try to virus protect it (haha virus protection what a joke). The fact that everyone is scared to death of installing any program made by anyone other than well-known-giant-corporation accounts for most of the of the catastrophe that is modern software.
So to answer to the forum topic, use a router and don't install software if you didn't look the developer in the eyes when you bought it.