How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?
No, they're competing with other social network providers over advertisement dollars.
It's now becoming so hard to avoid joining Google+ that they pretty much don't have to compete for users. If you're using the Internet you're probably going to join Google+ within the next few months, possibly by accident.
Because there are lots of people who want PhD:s, but not a lot of creativity to go around and even less funding to go around for creative and truly novel projects
You can bet that this has already been done in the industry so it's not like they're inventing anything that doesn't already exist.
By the way, it ought to be reasonably straightforward to get a fingerprint out of the totality of sensor data that a phone generates during the course of a week or so even if the sensors were flawless. After all, we all have different habits, different gaits, etc. Odds are someone is already doing that.
I'm not 100% sure of how it works in Britain, but I think the way it works is that there is a tax/fee on recording media that then gets passed to an organization that dishes out the money to copyright holders based on a measure of popularity. If you bought a blank VHS tape you have already payed for the right to make copies of any video content that you have obtained legally. The terms of use for those copies are pretty strict, but they are legal.
If a person made a private copy of a BBC program and then shared it with the BBC the BBC could probably try to sue the person for misuse, because the act of sharing a private copy with a corporation probably violates the terms of use, but that would of course be very stupid of them.
I think that once society has invented an institution such as the idea of a job and a profession and allowed it to take extremely deep roots over the course of thousands of years it's almost impossible to get rid of it.
There are no simple solutions, but it would help if there was a well-functioning worker's movement (although it probably shouldn't be called that for historical reasons) that would organize both employed and unemployed people, and put pressure on the owners of the machines and on the state to change the laws and regulations in a direction that would benefit most people. A first step could be to institute an effective 7-hour work day and outlaw unpaid overtime. The next step could be a 6-hour work day, then a 5.5 hour work day and so on and so fourth.
You could imagine a society in the distant future where people work hard for 45 minutes a day and spend the rest of the day on non-profit projects and leisure. It's not going to happen as long as the owners are extremely well organized and class-conscious (although they don't use those words) while people in general are unorganized.
The great thing about most people having jobs or earned retirement benefits is that each person can claim a moral right to the necessities of life (and then some). If most people don't work, how will they voice their rights?
Remember what Prime Minister Cameron said during the UK riots. If you don't stop, we'll pull your welfare.
The idea of distributing the wealth created by the machines without some form of easily arguable moral reason seems quite dangerous.
If the tornado left behind clay then you can pretty sure that a shallow dome-shaped building with concrete walls (or thick clay walls for that matter) would survive.
I would think the key to building a completely and utterly tornado-proof building is building it out of heavy materials that are hard for the wind to pick up and making sure the airflow over the building remains smooth and free of turbulence. You want smooth, flowing exterior surfaces. You do not want flat walls and corners that create turbulence.
The hard part is coming up with a practical and reasonably priced home that would also be completely tornado-proof. There are lots of good practical and economical reasons why most houses are more or less shaped like cuboids.
The iPad Mini is about the price of a mid-range phone, so I guess that's within budget. I think both the iPad Mini and the Nexus 7 (2012) are plenty powerful for most if not all games that are appropriate for kids under 6.
You would think that Google would realize that once a kid gets their first real computing device that kid is going to want to keep getting new devices with the same OS on them. That seems like a pretty good reason to prioritize features that parents want.
I've been told most of those spying techniques relied on listening to the radio noise that CRT monitors give off. I guess if you owned a monitor of the same brand and model as the target you could train your snooping device on your monitor and then use that setting.
I have no idea if it's true or if it's hyperbole, but it's often said that the most sensitive snooping devices could pick up the signal from across the street.
Wired keyboards give off a much weaker radio signal that you can try to snoop on in case your target happens to have one of these newfangled TFT screens.
Yeah, the first-gen Nexus 7 is pretty cheap now if you can find someone who's still selling it. It will do Skype as well as any laptop, and there are plenty of fun games for it.
The best form of parental control for a 4-year old is probably to physically remove the device and put it away out of sight and out of reach, but Google really needs to improve parental control for kids who are old enough to be allowed to have continuous access to a tablet or a phone for things like schoolwork.
Well, I would think the idea of flying the second stage past the Moon probably involved flying it back and crashing into the Pacific. Maybe another time.
No, you're confusing the concept of money with "cost" or perhaps "value".
Money is usually defined as the most commonly used thing or things used for trade in any society. Money is not a theoretical number, money is something fairly tangible that you can own and trade. It would probably be good if money were tied to resource usage in one way or another, but that is not always the case, is it?
Even aimbots quickly included code to intentionally miss a shot every now and then.
but that's a terrible method of hiding an aimbot.. what gives them away isn't high accuracy, but inhuman movements.. the best way to hide it is to not have it aim for you, but only to have it shoot for you when you mouse over a target yourself.
source: i wrote hacks for cs and cheated in the highest ranks of CAL without ever being suspected let alone caught.
It would still make sense to have it miss X% of the time to avoid detection by someone who gathers statistics. The cheater could then vary X manually so that misses are much more likely at points in the game where it doesn't really matter anyway. If asked the cheater could claim to be more focused when it matters.
Since you didn't get caught I suspect you probably missed shots intentionally at points in the game when you could afford to miss.
I dare anyone, especially after mr. Snowden's revelations, to contradict mr. Stallman's points.
In an economy that runs on a monetary system software projects that are able to attract and maintain larger revenue streams tend to win over software projects that are able to attract smaller revenue streams. Software as a service has shown to be superior in terms of generating revenue to software running on the client's computer for many (but certainly not all) applications. There is by the way a lot of theory that argues that monetary systems are superior to other economic systems.
So then it's kind of like knights v.s. tanks. The knight might be more honorable and just, but the tank is faster and it has a really big gun.
Since SaaS is going to become increasingly dominant, the reasonable thing to do would be to have a movement or a manifesto based on ideas about how to handle and minimize the inherent negative sides of SaaS. Fighting the use of SaaS could perhaps be viewed as honorable and just in some academic sense, but it is also a waste of valuable time and energy.
If we're talking popularity it would probably be a distro that's made by a company with a revenue stream and the staying power that comes with that and clear idea about what they're trying to accomplish, perhaps a distro that is super easy to play games on.
I think there was an announcement about an upcoming Linux distro that would fit that bill a couple of days ago...
People who can't do without a Win95-style UI will probably flock around something else, though.
Anytime a contemporary work is called art with the emphasis on art you pretty much know that the creation is not something that anyone outside of the art community is currently interested in.
Calling it crap is kind of pointless when you're not in the target audience for it. I shrug and call it art.
might be doable for something like global hawk(which already uses radar for ground surveillance and no doubt can avoid other planes with data from awacs).
but global hawk is friggin 130millin+ per unit.
A piece of string is friggin long...
There are radars in virtually all price ranges. There are cars with radar. I'm sure they can design a unit that makes sense for a drone.
And your link contains a pretty convincing refutation of the whole idea of the Sun having a significant surplus of charge. If it were true the solar wind would consist of particles witch charge of one sign moving much faster than particles of the other sign.
"The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that."
But doesn't that pretty strongly imply that we are all children of incest?
Does it count as incest if God commands it? He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and the multiplying part seems to imply that God wants their children to have children with one another. God changes his mind all the time in the Bible, so there's nothing strange about him endorsing incest for a while before banning it.
Of course this is all just an old tale. There's no point of thinking about it in biological terms as we understand them today.
The research that concluded that was based on theoretical calculations.
Empirical data paints quite a different picture. Here's a basic sanity check for you: if it took prohibitively huge amounts of diesel fuel to mine uranium the nuclear plant could not afford to buy uranium and stay competitive with oil-fired plants.
The text was written by and for people who lived in a time when most people had lots of kids, both sons and daughters. The author probably assumed that his readers would assume that Adam and Eve had daughters as well as sons.
It also says in Genesis 5:4 that Adam lived for 800 years and had sons and daughters so someone who read the whole text would not be confused, except by the age of the guy I guess.
Since the prior probability of a baby on the Autobahn is close to zero the car will probably conclude that it has misidentified a small animal as "baby" and proceed by slowing down smoothly and smashing into the baby at speed.
If the car was sure about the baby it would have to take a more difficult decision. Most human drivers would kill the baby rather than themselves.
Feynman diagrams are based on the idea that there is framework of time and space, more specifically basically the same time and space that we perceive in everyday life.
This new model apparently takes a simpler view of the problem by not caring about time and space. I suppose you could say that time and space could be viewed as emergent properties of this geometric object that they have come up with / discovered.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?
No, they're competing with other social network providers over advertisement dollars.
It's now becoming so hard to avoid joining Google+ that they pretty much don't have to compete for users. If you're using the Internet you're probably going to join Google+ within the next few months, possibly by accident.
Because there are lots of people who want PhD:s, but not a lot of creativity to go around and even less funding to go around for creative and truly novel projects
You can bet that this has already been done in the industry so it's not like they're inventing anything that doesn't already exist.
By the way, it ought to be reasonably straightforward to get a fingerprint out of the totality of sensor data that a phone generates during the course of a week or so even if the sensors were flawless. After all, we all have different habits, different gaits, etc. Odds are someone is already doing that.
I'm not 100% sure of how it works in Britain, but I think the way it works is that there is a tax/fee on recording media that then gets passed to an organization that dishes out the money to copyright holders based on a measure of popularity. If you bought a blank VHS tape you have already payed for the right to make copies of any video content that you have obtained legally. The terms of use for those copies are pretty strict, but they are legal.
If a person made a private copy of a BBC program and then shared it with the BBC the BBC could probably try to sue the person for misuse, because the act of sharing a private copy with a corporation probably violates the terms of use, but that would of course be very stupid of them.
Next week: why overlaying elevator music / porno soundtrack (or even your favorite song) over voice content doesn't work...
For one thing it's annoying. Also, people with hearing disabilities might not be able to hear the speech.
I think that once society has invented an institution such as the idea of a job and a profession and allowed it to take extremely deep roots over the course of thousands of years it's almost impossible to get rid of it.
There are no simple solutions, but it would help if there was a well-functioning worker's movement (although it probably shouldn't be called that for historical reasons) that would organize both employed and unemployed people, and put pressure on the owners of the machines and on the state to change the laws and regulations in a direction that would benefit most people. A first step could be to institute an effective 7-hour work day and outlaw unpaid overtime. The next step could be a 6-hour work day, then a 5.5 hour work day and so on and so fourth.
You could imagine a society in the distant future where people work hard for 45 minutes a day and spend the rest of the day on non-profit projects and leisure. It's not going to happen as long as the owners are extremely well organized and class-conscious (although they don't use those words) while people in general are unorganized.
The great thing about most people having jobs or earned retirement benefits is that each person can claim a moral right to the necessities of life (and then some). If most people don't work, how will they voice their rights?
Remember what Prime Minister Cameron said during the UK riots. If you don't stop, we'll pull your welfare.
The idea of distributing the wealth created by the machines without some form of easily arguable moral reason seems quite dangerous.
If the tornado left behind clay then you can pretty sure that a shallow dome-shaped building with concrete walls (or thick clay walls for that matter) would survive.
I would think the key to building a completely and utterly tornado-proof building is building it out of heavy materials that are hard for the wind to pick up and making sure the airflow over the building remains smooth and free of turbulence. You want smooth, flowing exterior surfaces. You do not want flat walls and corners that create turbulence.
The hard part is coming up with a practical and reasonably priced home that would also be completely tornado-proof. There are lots of good practical and economical reasons why most houses are more or less shaped like cuboids.
The iPad Mini is about the price of a mid-range phone, so I guess that's within budget. I think both the iPad Mini and the Nexus 7 (2012) are plenty powerful for most if not all games that are appropriate for kids under 6.
You would think that Google would realize that once a kid gets their first real computing device that kid is going to want to keep getting new devices with the same OS on them. That seems like a pretty good reason to prioritize features that parents want.
I've been told most of those spying techniques relied on listening to the radio noise that CRT monitors give off. I guess if you owned a monitor of the same brand and model as the target you could train your snooping device on your monitor and then use that setting.
I have no idea if it's true or if it's hyperbole, but it's often said that the most sensitive snooping devices could pick up the signal from across the street.
Wired keyboards give off a much weaker radio signal that you can try to snoop on in case your target happens to have one of these newfangled TFT screens.
Yeah, the first-gen Nexus 7 is pretty cheap now if you can find someone who's still selling it. It will do Skype as well as any laptop, and there are plenty of fun games for it.
The best form of parental control for a 4-year old is probably to physically remove the device and put it away out of sight and out of reach, but Google really needs to improve parental control for kids who are old enough to be allowed to have continuous access to a tablet or a phone for things like schoolwork.
Well, I would think the idea of flying the second stage past the Moon probably involved flying it back and crashing into the Pacific. Maybe another time.
And here's a detailed write-up with lots of background and pictures: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/spacex-debut-falcon-9-v1-1-cassiope-launch/
No, you're confusing the concept of money with "cost" or perhaps "value".
Money is usually defined as the most commonly used thing or things used for trade in any society. Money is not a theoretical number, money is something fairly tangible that you can own and trade. It would probably be good if money were tied to resource usage in one way or another, but that is not always the case, is it?
Even aimbots quickly included code to intentionally miss a shot every now and then.
but that's a terrible method of hiding an aimbot.. what gives them away isn't high accuracy, but inhuman movements.. the best way to hide it is to not have it aim for you, but only to have it shoot for you when you mouse over a target yourself.
source: i wrote hacks for cs and cheated in the highest ranks of CAL without ever being suspected let alone caught.
It would still make sense to have it miss X% of the time to avoid detection by someone who gathers statistics. The cheater could then vary X manually so that misses are much more likely at points in the game where it doesn't really matter anyway. If asked the cheater could claim to be more focused when it matters.
Since you didn't get caught I suspect you probably missed shots intentionally at points in the game when you could afford to miss.
I dare anyone, especially after mr. Snowden's revelations, to contradict mr. Stallman's points.
In an economy that runs on a monetary system software projects that are able to attract and maintain larger revenue streams tend to win over software projects that are able to attract smaller revenue streams. Software as a service has shown to be superior in terms of generating revenue to software running on the client's computer for many (but certainly not all) applications. There is by the way a lot of theory that argues that monetary systems are superior to other economic systems.
So then it's kind of like knights v.s. tanks. The knight might be more honorable and just, but the tank is faster and it has a really big gun.
Since SaaS is going to become increasingly dominant, the reasonable thing to do would be to have a movement or a manifesto based on ideas about how to handle and minimize the inherent negative sides of SaaS. Fighting the use of SaaS could perhaps be viewed as honorable and just in some academic sense, but it is also a waste of valuable time and energy.
If we're talking popularity it would probably be a distro that's made by a company with a revenue stream and the staying power that comes with that and clear idea about what they're trying to accomplish, perhaps a distro that is super easy to play games on.
I think there was an announcement about an upcoming Linux distro that would fit that bill a couple of days ago...
People who can't do without a Win95-style UI will probably flock around something else, though.
Anytime a contemporary work is called art with the emphasis on art you pretty much know that the creation is not something that anyone outside of the art community is currently interested in.
Calling it crap is kind of pointless when you're not in the target audience for it. I shrug and call it art.
it's friggin expensive.
might be doable for something like global hawk(which already uses radar for ground surveillance and no doubt can avoid other planes with data from awacs).
but global hawk is friggin 130millin+ per unit.
A piece of string is friggin long...
There are radars in virtually all price ranges. There are cars with radar. I'm sure they can design a unit that makes sense for a drone.
And your link contains a pretty convincing refutation of the whole idea of the Sun having a significant surplus of charge. If it were true the solar wind would consist of particles witch charge of one sign moving much faster than particles of the other sign.
"The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that."
But doesn't that pretty strongly imply that we are all children of incest?
Does it count as incest if God commands it? He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and the multiplying part seems to imply that God wants their children to have children with one another. God changes his mind all the time in the Bible, so there's nothing strange about him endorsing incest for a while before banning it.
Of course this is all just an old tale. There's no point of thinking about it in biological terms as we understand them today.
The research that concluded that was based on theoretical calculations.
Empirical data paints quite a different picture. Here's a basic sanity check for you: if it took prohibitively huge amounts of diesel fuel to mine uranium the nuclear plant could not afford to buy uranium and stay competitive with oil-fired plants.
The text was written by and for people who lived in a time when most people had lots of kids, both sons and daughters. The author probably assumed that his readers would assume that Adam and Eve had daughters as well as sons.
It also says in Genesis 5:4 that Adam lived for 800 years and had sons and daughters so someone who read the whole text would not be confused, except by the age of the guy I guess.
It looks to me like a student thesis project in art or sociology or whatever. I mean the website...
I don't think anyone is actually planning to do this.
Since the prior probability of a baby on the Autobahn is close to zero the car will probably conclude that it has misidentified a small animal as "baby" and proceed by slowing down smoothly and smashing into the baby at speed.
If the car was sure about the baby it would have to take a more difficult decision. Most human drivers would kill the baby rather than themselves.
Feynman diagrams are based on the idea that there is framework of time and space, more specifically basically the same time and space that we perceive in everyday life.
This new model apparently takes a simpler view of the problem by not caring about time and space. I suppose you could say that time and space could be viewed as emergent properties of this geometric object that they have come up with / discovered.