Maybe you're making a joke; but that's actually four more examples of using a noun in place of a verb. (The last one would have been correct if it weren't for the hyphen.)
Yes, verbing wierds language, as Watterson wrote, but on the other hand; What word do you propose we use to mean "to swindle by assuming a false identity online"?
Language evolves as new words are needed, and just because a word is already a noun, there's no rule saying it can't become a verb. (To "fish" is a verb.)
Obviously it's up to the user to decide what pages he stores on his homescreen, and he can choose to do so when he's got WiFi. -It's just like installing an app, except you don't have to go through the app store.
The main difference would be that humans operators can testify at a war crimes tribunal. We know that the Bush-Cheney administration was sufficiently scared of ending up in front of a tribunal that they felt the need to introduce the American Service-Members' Protection Act. It seems reasonable to assume that this fear also reduced the number of drone killings that they authorized.
The Obama administration tried to make the programs more secret, but that backfired again due to human operators. Stories like that of Brandon Bryant has received significant attention in Europe if not in the United States.
Use a bunch of AI drones to commit atrocities, and you can literally wipe their memories afterwards. I'm sure a lot of small-time dictators are drooling over this possibility.
During your rant, I couldn't help but think, 'But they DO have a standardized app for accessing all the websites', and it's called the browser!
More specifically, there are web apps! This gives the look-and-feel of an app, including an icon on the homescreen and offline access. All you need to do is add a few extra files to your existing website. Users won't have to go through the app store, and updates happen automatically.
This was the only kind of app on the original iPhone.
LT crashes outnumber RT crashes 3 to 1 - Then if you have to make three right turns to make up for a left turn... do you come out the same?
Only if people turn left and right equally often. If more than 50 % of turns are to the right (which we can probably assume) then the risk per right turn is less than 1/3 of the risk per left turn.
From TFA: "[Pay Pal's] general counsel, Louise Pentland, wrote in a blog post last week that its customers can choose not to receive autodialed or prerecorded message calls by contacting customer support."
So, could someone, please, build a system where anyone can fill out a web-from and it robo-calls PayPal support using text-to-speech. The call would go something like this.
This is to inform you that your customer. John. Smith. Is requesting not to receive automated phone calls. The user name of. John. Smith. is. J. S. M. I. T. H. 1. 2. 3. He, or she, is requesting not to receive automated phone calls. The reason that. John. Smith. has given is: Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Message repeats. This is to inform you that your customer. John. Smith. Is requesting not to receive automated phone calls. The user name of. John. Smith. is. J. S. M. I. T. H. 1. 2. 3. He, or she, is requesting not to receive automated phone calls. The reason that. John. Smith. has given is: Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Message repeats...
If the system is not able to reach customer support, then it could switch to Pentland's home number instead.
Let me send you this link on Skype. Oh wait, you don't have Skype. No, I don't have WhatsApp. Facebook? No. Okay, I'll email it to you.
So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard? And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?
As for communicating with someone who is nearby without having to type an email address or user name: Apps like Bump have been around for years. Oh wait, you don't have bump? No I don't have Google Tone. How about OkCupid?
So, the question is: Is it illegal to issue HTTP GET requests (that conform to all specifications and obey the robots.txt of the site in question) if the owner of the site didn't intent for the content at that URL to be available to you?
In other words: Is requesting a (non password-protected) webpage equivalent to representing yourself as someone who is authorized to access than page?
Answer "no" on a law-abiding website and it will ask you again every time you load a new page, because it has no way of knowing whether you already answered the question...
"Four of the five individuals who have access to control the camera's settings will testify they did not change the cameras' recording instructions -The fifth person is defendant."
Sounds convincing, until you realize that this would also be true if they were prosecuting any one of the other four.
The cost of cycling an EV battery is about 50 cents per kWh (source). In many cases, electricity from the grid is far cheaper than that from the battery, even when the battery can be charged for free.
Assuming that Tesla can cut that cost in half, things start to get interesting. It would then make sense to use the battery whenever the difference between what you pay for electricity and what you can get for it is less than 25 cents (plus a few cents to account for losses in the battery). But the profit, if any, would be small, and the initial investment is high.
I don't think that anybody who is on the grid today will benefit from going off it. This technology currently only makes sense for new construction in remote areas. But maybe a decade from now, prices will have come down, and there will be a huge market for this. Tesla will then have a big share of that market.
I don't think it's about the "cool" factor as much as the fact that the same people that own the military industry also own the politicians who make these decisions.
I wouldn't call it "covered". What is says is: "If randomly distributed, the probability of the same redundant piece being hosted on the same controlled node is statistically quite small." It does not attempt to quantify what "quite small" means. So I'll try to do that.
Assume that you have a million blocks stored in the network. Each block is stored as three identical copies. Then assume that 1 % of the storage network is taken down at the same time. The probability that all copies of an individual block got lost is one in a million. However, the probability that at least one out of your one million blocks was lost is approximately 1-1/e or 63 %. So in this scenario, you are more likely than not to have lost data.
The bitcoin transaction chain is public, so in theory it is possible to track stolen bitcoins. People could arbitrarily decide not to accept bitcoin from tainted sources (or not to accept bitcoin at all) and that would make life much harder for thieves and extortionists. However, the accepted practice is that all bitcoins are equal. There is no governing authority that has the power to declare that certain transactions are "tainted".
If a mechanism for declaring bitcoin "tainted" would be introduced today, it would not only affect the original thieves, but also a large number of innocent extortionists and drug dealers who just happened to run their bitcoin through the same "tumbler" as the thieves. The whole system would collapse. So it's not going to happen.
It is basically impossible to make a return trip to Mars because of the fuel requirements, which is why there has not been any manned missions, and will likely not be any in the near future. It takes a lot of fuel to deliver a very small amount of fuel to Mars. There'd have to be a long series of fuel delivery flights before a manned mission. For those, fuel efficiency is of course priority one.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're making a joke; but that's actually four more examples of using a noun in place of a verb.
(The last one would have been correct if it weren't for the hyphen.)
Yes, verbing wierds language, as Watterson wrote, but on the other hand; What word do you propose we use to mean "to swindle by assuming a false identity online"?
Language evolves as new words are needed, and just because a word is already a noun, there's no rule saying it can't become a verb. (To "fish" is a verb.)
That's probably true to some extent, but there's not enough statistical evidence to rule out a "rock music causes oil production"-type correlation.
Unrelated things frequently peak within a few years from each other by pure chance.
Obviously it's up to the user to decide what pages he stores on his homescreen, and he can choose to do so when he's got WiFi. -It's just like installing an app, except you don't have to go through the app store.
The main difference would be that humans operators can testify at a war crimes tribunal. We know that the Bush-Cheney administration was sufficiently scared of ending up in front of a tribunal that they felt the need to introduce the American Service-Members' Protection Act. It seems reasonable to assume that this fear also reduced the number of drone killings that they authorized.
The Obama administration tried to make the programs more secret, but that backfired again due to human operators. Stories like that of Brandon Bryant has received significant attention in Europe if not in the United States.
Use a bunch of AI drones to commit atrocities, and you can literally wipe their memories afterwards. I'm sure a lot of small-time dictators are drooling over this possibility.
During your rant, I couldn't help but think, 'But they DO have a standardized app for accessing all the websites', and it's called the browser!
More specifically, there are web apps! This gives the look-and-feel of an app, including an icon on the homescreen and offline access. All you need to do is add a few extra files to your existing website. Users won't have to go through the app store, and updates happen automatically.
This was the only kind of app on the original iPhone.
Also: obligatory xkcd
It would probably work, in the sense that it would reflect power away from your body and towards where it's useful, improving battery life (slightly).
LT crashes outnumber RT crashes 3 to 1 - Then if you have to make three right turns to make up for a left turn... do you come out the same?
Only if people turn left and right equally often. If more than 50 % of turns are to the right (which we can probably assume) then the risk per right turn is less than 1/3 of the risk per left turn.
From TFA: "[Pay Pal's] general counsel, Louise Pentland, wrote in a blog post last week that its customers can choose not to receive autodialed or prerecorded message calls by contacting customer support."
So, could someone, please, build a system where anyone can fill out a web-from and it robo-calls PayPal support using text-to-speech. The call would go something like this.
This is to inform you that your customer. John. Smith. Is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
The user name of. John. Smith. is. J. S. M. I. T. H. 1. 2. 3. He, or she, is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
The reason that. John. Smith. has given is: Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Message repeats. This is to inform you that your customer. John. Smith. Is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
The user name of. John. Smith. is. J. S. M. I. T. H. 1. 2. 3. He, or she, is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
The reason that. John. Smith. has given is: Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Message repeats...
If the system is not able to reach customer support, then it could switch to Pentland's home number instead.
Let me send you this link on Skype. Oh wait, you don't have Skype. No, I don't have WhatsApp. Facebook? No. Okay, I'll email it to you.
So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard? And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?
As for communicating with someone who is nearby without having to type an email address or user name: Apps like Bump have been around for years. Oh wait, you don't have bump? No I don't have Google Tone. How about OkCupid?
If I want to send you a link to a webpage, then it is safe to assume that we're both connected to the internet. So why not send the link that way?
What if the sign doesn't say "no entry", but instead "feel free to request any URL that you want" ?
So, the question is: Is it illegal to issue HTTP GET requests (that conform to all specifications and obey the robots.txt of the site in question) if the owner of the site didn't intent for the content at that URL to be available to you?
In other words: Is requesting a (non password-protected) webpage equivalent to representing yourself as someone who is authorized to access than page?
Answer "no" on a law-abiding website and it will ask you again every time you load a new page, because it has no way of knowing whether you already answered the question...
"Are you older than 49 or younger".
There really is no wrong answer here...
"No" is really the wrong answer here
FTFY.
(Probably they want to test if applicants understand basic logic.)
"Digital Native" means this.
"Four of the five individuals who have access to control the camera's settings will testify they did not change the cameras' recording instructions -The fifth person is defendant."
Sounds convincing, until you realize that this would also be true if they were prosecuting any one of the other four.
The cost of cycling an EV battery is about 50 cents per kWh (source). In many cases, electricity from the grid is far cheaper than that from the battery, even when the battery can be charged for free.
Assuming that Tesla can cut that cost in half, things start to get interesting. It would then make sense to use the battery whenever the difference between what you pay for electricity and what you can get for it is less than 25 cents (plus a few cents to account for losses in the battery). But the profit, if any, would be small, and the initial investment is high.
I don't think that anybody who is on the grid today will benefit from going off it. This technology currently only makes sense for new construction in remote areas. But maybe a decade from now, prices will have come down, and there will be a huge market for this. Tesla will then have a big share of that market.
How is this different from what ICANN did when tried to get every major brand to pay them $185.000 for a gTLD?
There's an app that instantly wipes your (android) phone after X incorrect attempts. Set X=1 before going through customs.
I don't think it's about the "cool" factor as much as the fact that the same people that own the military industry also own the politicians who make these decisions.
I wouldn't call it "covered". What is says is: "If randomly distributed, the probability of the same redundant piece being hosted on the same controlled node is statistically quite small." It does not attempt to quantify what "quite small" means. So I'll try to do that.
Assume that you have a million blocks stored in the network. Each block is stored as three identical copies. Then assume that 1 % of the storage network is taken down at the same time. The probability that all copies of an individual block got lost is one in a million. However, the probability that at least one out of your one million blocks was lost is approximately 1-1/e or 63 %. So in this scenario, you are more likely than not to have lost data.
The bitcoin transaction chain is public, so in theory it is possible to track stolen bitcoins. People could arbitrarily decide not to accept bitcoin from tainted sources (or not to accept bitcoin at all) and that would make life much harder for thieves and extortionists. However, the accepted practice is that all bitcoins are equal. There is no governing authority that has the power to declare that certain transactions are "tainted".
If a mechanism for declaring bitcoin "tainted" would be introduced today, it would not only affect the original thieves, but also a large number of innocent extortionists and drug dealers who just happened to run their bitcoin through the same "tumbler" as the thieves. The whole system would collapse. So it's not going to happen.
Yep. Not checking your own spelling while attacking someones grammar on slashdot is stupid.
Dyslexia, on the other hand, does not appear to be correlated to intelligence.
It is basically impossible to make a return trip to Mars because of the fuel requirements, which is why there has not been any manned missions, and will likely not be any in the near future. It takes a lot of fuel to deliver a very small amount of fuel to Mars. There'd have to be a long series of fuel delivery flights before a manned mission. For those, fuel efficiency is of course priority one.