How would you control it? Wireless would be a problem, as radiation tends to play bloody havoc with radio signals, and a cable, while possible, would offer a lot of technical challenges, reducing movement ability and whatnot. And radiation could still be a problem, you'd have to shield the cable as well, and of course make up an interface with feedback and precise control to move around. Do-able, but not easy.
Powersuit's are simply a lot easier and more versatile all around.
The tea partier will hit you over the head with a pound of sacred dead tree matter, while explaining why corporate interests trump all else. Libertarians will just quote Ayn Rand instead.
So, the libertarians try to use two pounds of dead matter? Gotcha.
Getting it back to Earth would cost far more than it's worth. Better to discover it in an asteroid.
With the technology we have now, yes. The point would be to develop better technology to make it cost effective, and you can bet some companies would at least try.
Doubly good rant since it was posted at the time the article went live, by an account which has (as of this writing) only a single post. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll see some half-hearted posts in other threads today to make it look slightly less like a complete shill.
Dogs are the absolute best tool we have for the job. There's a reason we use dogs to hunt animals, guard animals, property, and people, track fugitives, search for survivors, bodies, drugs, and explosives, detect cancer or seizures, lead the blind, etc.
They have incredible senses and are very intelligent.
Yes, and some of those senses are of their masters and what they want. Dogs don't even need vocal commands to respond to you. If you have one, try telling them "sit" without actually making any noise. If the dog is decently well trained, they will, simply from your body language alone. And that's a problem in law enforcement, because it means when a police officer (even subconsciously) wants or thinks there might be explosives, the dog will quite often react as if there is. Because that is what dogs do: please their owners. That is how they are trained.
I'm not a photographer, but I think: 1/4th the light, but 1/2 in terms of resolution. Light can be adjusted for, resolution cannot (well, sort of, there are tricks, but you'd rather use those on a higher resolution image to get better virtual resolution anyways).
The sentence is poorly phrased: what they mean is that they create the.bat file using some command line parameters (one of which dumps console output to the file of your choice, which could be "c:/autoexec.bat"). That then gets executed automatically on login, and boom, exploited.
The solution is pretty easy: make browsers that open external programs for a link show what they are doing and exactly what the command is, and/or have steam show the same when it loads the protocol command. Steam could also refuse to pass command line parameters, but that limits the usefulness of the protocol in the first place (might be necessary, unfortunately).
I do not get how exactly this is an exploit. You need to create a batch file on the intended system start-up folder first. If you can do that. Why not just have the batch file execute a command to download a malicious file and execute it?
Because you have the wrong order. The exploit can be used to create the batch file, which is then auto-executed when windows next starts (autoexec.bat).
Bah, you beat me to the bigot bashing. It's really a shame that so many people are too ignorant to realize that it's not "democrat" vs. "republican" and has not been for over thirty years.
The AC OP didn't say "democrat" or "republican". And denigrating a political stance isn't bigotry in any case.
So by reason of thinking, if you have a RAID of 15 drives for storage of images, these images never change, they are written and never over written, then the SSDs should theoretically never die because they are only reading these bits now?
Reading flash is not 100% non-destructive, if you never do a re-write cells near each read cell (which is all of them, probably) will degrade over time. I believe the stored data will degrade over long periods of time in any case, but I'm not sure. But if you re-write data every year or so, they could probably last decades.
This will surely deter the far better free market solution from being developed.
Whatever it might be. My Capitalist gods haven't told me yet.
In this case? Not using Google (does that make me a capitalist god?). Try DuckDuckGo, or Bing (if you want to cut out the middle-man and get some extra tracking in). Mapquest still exists, Vimeo for videos... yeah, if you think there aren't plenty of alternatives for Google, you're pretty ignorant. Google even lets you export your data to use with them.
Now, whether you want to actually use those alternatives, well, that is entirely for you to decide.
Seriously, this review reads like something I might have written in middle school. All the sentences are short and factual with abrupt endings and poor transitions, composed into overly short paragraphs. It's more like the outline notes for a review than a review itself. In fact, I think it might be, since there isn't any actual "review" at all, just a list of "he says x at point y."
And I'm not even going to touch the "number throaty" he appears to be glad the author avoided.
But seriously, why would they think that any serious organization that had such a database (like the NSA, for example) would bother registering it with the "The World Record Academy"? A database like that is supposed to be used for something. Simply being the biggest is no more impressive than the biggest ball of twine in the world. I'd be much more interested if it was the fastest, because scanning a database that large for biometric matches is probably not going to be easy.
This "news" just sounds like someone is hungry for attention.
Further, your founding fathers were, by-and-large, not religious -- you go ahead and find one mention of "God" in the US Constitution... I'll wait.
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons).
Source. You were saying? Oh wait, you're an uninformed ignorant idiot who clearly thinks that for a person to be religious, they have to write the word "God" into their political documents. I don't care what you were saying.
Jesus, you're thinking of giving a kid a game that early? On linux too? Do you want him to grow up without a chance in hell of being able to speak to Women? How about you just let him shit his pants and play with wooden bricks? Looking forwards to your next post - "Which beers should I introduce my 12 year old to?"
Letting children play with video games is pretty standard, now-a-days. Most often, simple smartphone games and whatnot rather than Linux games, but not at all uncommon. It's a good way to improve hand-eye coordination and brain development. Not being able to speak to women is pretty much unrelated, outside of the fact that a lot of people who can't do so in the first place gravitate towards computers and games, on account of the fact that they don't involved the possibility of messing up some social convention they are often unable to grasp. But playing games doesn't mean you won't or can't develop such skills, it's more that people who don't have those skills in the first place go towards gaming and computers in general. Don't confuse cause and effect.
And for that matter, 12 is a bit young for alcohol, but 14-15 is a good time to introduce them to small quantities (soft liquor, mind you, beer or wine). Otherwise, when they leave supervision around alcohol for the first time they'll likely overindulge, on account of a lack of experience. If they've been drinking on moderation for several years, that is a lot less likely.
What are you talking about? What two other acts, only when taken together, constitute murder?
Well, there is driving your car forward and telling someone to stand in front of it. Or stuffing someone in a large room and filling the same room with poison (or flame or vacuum). I could go on, but the thing you are missing is that two actions, taken together, become something different than either of them separate. Murder is lethality + against a person, and prostitution is selling + sex, and an argument that the two individual actions together are legal makes the action as a whole legal is deeply flawed. Having sex is legal, and so is being in public. Is that a good argument that sex in public should be legal? No, because society has decided that when you put those two things together, you get something that is fundamentally different from either in isolation. Same with prostitution. You can argue that society is wrong, and I think make some good arguments for that, but George Carlin's argument is, quite frankly, a bad argument.
Article did not answer: If Europeans don't have GPS yet, how do their existing sat-navs work? And why is this new system only for Europe?
The Europeans do have GPS, it's publicly available and "global" is in the name. There is also the Russian GLONASS, which is basically the same. The EU doesn't have it's own network, though, which is important for political reasons (and only political reasons). Although there are some technical improvements Galileo makes over GPS, they certainly don't justify a new system. It's also available for everyone, or at least will be, if it ever gets operational (again, global).
That assumes 2 things: first, that they wouldn't have enough power to process any computer we could build no matter how large (which is quite likely if they are simulating the whole universe, after all they have to simulate quantum effects we don't cause as well as those we do), and that even if they didn't have effectively infinite processing power, we'd be able to build a quantum computer big enough to reach their upper limit. Since the larger a quantum system gets the less stable it gets (part of the reason we don't observe quantum effects on the macroscopic level), that is rather unlikely.
That is, obviously, an interesting thought experiment, but I think if our universe really is a Matrix-style simulation running on some computer it is highly unlikely we would ever be able to prove it, as any limitations could be built-in to our universe in such a way that they would appear perfectly normal.
The test can (maybe) figure out of one of the consequences that would result from our universe being a simulation does, in fact, exist, provided, of course, our theories about how the universe and simulations work are actually accurate. Or in other words, it might show that it is possible that the universe is a simulation. Even if we show that the consequence exists (the consequence is that energy particles have a limit, the theory being that a simulation would have an upper limit on what it is able to simulate, kind of similar to how your computer has an upper limit on what it can fit into it's RAM), we still won't know that it is actually the result of the universe being a simulation, or some other unknown cause, and even if we don't find an upper limit, it could mean either our methods are too limited to find it or that the simulation isn't limited in the way that we think.
Really, while the research is itself fascinating, it isn't some kind of definitive test. Such tests are phenomenally rare in physics, perhaps even non-existent (it's always possible to create another theory that fits the observations).
As a side note, saying the universe isn't "real" is almost self-contradictory, as we define existence and reality precisely by our observations of the universe itself. A holographic universe would be no less real for being holographic, if only because we would literally have no other possible meaning for the word "real" (the simulation that occurs in The Matrix movie is of a completely different nature from the holographic principle). I'd also somewhat object to even using the word "simulation" in the first place, as that implies it is a simulation of something, when we really have absolutely no reason to suspect that is indeed the case (holographic universes can be modeled by simulation cases, hence the use of the term).
Disclaimer: IANAP yet, but I'm studying in the field.
The converse to that is that anyone can "speak for" Anonymous, insofar as they represent a sub-group with a certain opinion. And if the majority of people who identify themselves as "Anonymous" or at least the majority of the vocally active individuals who do so espouse a certain belief, then "Anonymous" can be said to be saying that. Of course, not all the individuals might say or think that, but it doesn't matter if the de facto leaders all do.
And Anonymous most certainly does have de facto leaders, it'd not be able to do anything if it didn't. Even a mob has certain individuals who it listens to (usually the loudest), and that is what Anonymous is, a mob. Anyone who incites a large group of people who identify as "Anonymous" to a specific action is a leader, no matter how much Anonymous protests that they don't have them.
That's why I said "supposed to", most of these patents are in fact little more than ideas. Well technically all software patents are, but the point is that prior statement of the idea for a patent doesn't serve as prior art for a patent (although in the case of software patents it probably should, unless the patent is covering some radical new way of handling the problem, which I doubt this one does), and certainly doesn't if it is just the idea itself, not details about the implementation process, which sci-fi doesn't describe.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you control it? Wireless would be a problem, as radiation tends to play bloody havoc with radio signals, and a cable, while possible, would offer a lot of technical challenges, reducing movement ability and whatnot. And radiation could still be a problem, you'd have to shield the cable as well, and of course make up an interface with feedback and precise control to move around. Do-able, but not easy.
Powersuit's are simply a lot easier and more versatile all around.
The tea partier will hit you over the head with a pound of sacred dead tree matter, while explaining why corporate interests trump all else. Libertarians will just quote Ayn Rand instead.
So, the libertarians try to use two pounds of dead matter? Gotcha.
Getting it back to Earth would cost far more than it's worth. Better to discover it in an asteroid.
With the technology we have now, yes. The point would be to develop better technology to make it cost effective, and you can bet some companies would at least try.
After all, a dead-tree newspaper can be read by multiple people despite having been paid for only once!
As oppose to a digital newspaper, which can be read by millions despite only having been paid for once.
Doubly good rant since it was posted at the time the article went live, by an account which has (as of this writing) only a single post. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll see some half-hearted posts in other threads today to make it look slightly less like a complete shill.
Dogs are the absolute best tool we have for the job. There's a reason we use dogs to hunt animals, guard animals, property, and people, track fugitives, search for survivors, bodies, drugs, and explosives, detect cancer or seizures, lead the blind, etc. They have incredible senses and are very intelligent.
Yes, and some of those senses are of their masters and what they want. Dogs don't even need vocal commands to respond to you. If you have one, try telling them "sit" without actually making any noise. If the dog is decently well trained, they will, simply from your body language alone. And that's a problem in law enforcement, because it means when a police officer (even subconsciously) wants or thinks there might be explosives, the dog will quite often react as if there is. Because that is what dogs do: please their owners. That is how they are trained.
I'm not a photographer, but I think: 1/4th the light, but 1/2 in terms of resolution. Light can be adjusted for, resolution cannot (well, sort of, there are tricks, but you'd rather use those on a higher resolution image to get better virtual resolution anyways).
The sentence is poorly phrased: what they mean is that they create the .bat file using some command line parameters (one of which dumps console output to the file of your choice, which could be "c:/autoexec.bat"). That then gets executed automatically on login, and boom, exploited.
The solution is pretty easy: make browsers that open external programs for a link show what they are doing and exactly what the command is, and/or have steam show the same when it loads the protocol command. Steam could also refuse to pass command line parameters, but that limits the usefulness of the protocol in the first place (might be necessary, unfortunately).
I do not get how exactly this is an exploit. You need to create a batch file on the intended system start-up folder first. If you can do that. Why not just have the batch file execute a command to download a malicious file and execute it?
Because you have the wrong order. The exploit can be used to create the batch file, which is then auto-executed when windows next starts (autoexec.bat).
Bah, you beat me to the bigot bashing. It's really a shame that so many people are too ignorant to realize that it's not "democrat" vs. "republican" and has not been for over thirty years.
The AC OP didn't say "democrat" or "republican". And denigrating a political stance isn't bigotry in any case.
So by reason of thinking, if you have a RAID of 15 drives for storage of images, these images never change, they are written and never over written, then the SSDs should theoretically never die because they are only reading these bits now?
Reading flash is not 100% non-destructive, if you never do a re-write cells near each read cell (which is all of them, probably) will degrade over time. I believe the stored data will degrade over long periods of time in any case, but I'm not sure. But if you re-write data every year or so, they could probably last decades.
This will surely deter the far better free market solution from being developed.
Whatever it might be. My Capitalist gods haven't told me yet.
In this case? Not using Google (does that make me a capitalist god?). Try DuckDuckGo, or Bing (if you want to cut out the middle-man and get some extra tracking in). Mapquest still exists, Vimeo for videos... yeah, if you think there aren't plenty of alternatives for Google, you're pretty ignorant. Google even lets you export your data to use with them.
Now, whether you want to actually use those alternatives, well, that is entirely for you to decide.
You're telling me the EU thinks it can tell Google it has to do business in France? Interesting.
Or zeroes.
ZPM's aren't even perpetual motion devices, they have limited (but extremely high) energy capacity.
Seriously, this review reads like something I might have written in middle school. All the sentences are short and factual with abrupt endings and poor transitions, composed into overly short paragraphs. It's more like the outline notes for a review than a review itself. In fact, I think it might be, since there isn't any actual "review" at all, just a list of "he says x at point y."
And I'm not even going to touch the "number throaty" he appears to be glad the author avoided.
But seriously, why would they think that any serious organization that had such a database (like the NSA, for example) would bother registering it with the "The World Record Academy"? A database like that is supposed to be used for something. Simply being the biggest is no more impressive than the biggest ball of twine in the world. I'd be much more interested if it was the fastest, because scanning a database that large for biometric matches is probably not going to be easy.
This "news" just sounds like someone is hungry for attention.
Further, your founding fathers were, by-and-large, not religious -- you go ahead and find one mention of "God" in the US Constitution... I'll wait.
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons).
Source. You were saying? Oh wait, you're an uninformed ignorant idiot who clearly thinks that for a person to be religious, they have to write the word "God" into their political documents. I don't care what you were saying.
Jesus, you're thinking of giving a kid a game that early? On linux too? Do you want him to grow up without a chance in hell of being able to speak to Women? How about you just let him shit his pants and play with wooden bricks? Looking forwards to your next post - "Which beers should I introduce my 12 year old to?"
Letting children play with video games is pretty standard, now-a-days. Most often, simple smartphone games and whatnot rather than Linux games, but not at all uncommon. It's a good way to improve hand-eye coordination and brain development. Not being able to speak to women is pretty much unrelated, outside of the fact that a lot of people who can't do so in the first place gravitate towards computers and games, on account of the fact that they don't involved the possibility of messing up some social convention they are often unable to grasp. But playing games doesn't mean you won't or can't develop such skills, it's more that people who don't have those skills in the first place go towards gaming and computers in general. Don't confuse cause and effect.
And for that matter, 12 is a bit young for alcohol, but 14-15 is a good time to introduce them to small quantities (soft liquor, mind you, beer or wine). Otherwise, when they leave supervision around alcohol for the first time they'll likely overindulge, on account of a lack of experience. If they've been drinking on moderation for several years, that is a lot less likely.
What are you talking about? What two other acts, only when taken together, constitute murder?
Well, there is driving your car forward and telling someone to stand in front of it. Or stuffing someone in a large room and filling the same room with poison (or flame or vacuum). I could go on, but the thing you are missing is that two actions, taken together, become something different than either of them separate. Murder is lethality + against a person, and prostitution is selling + sex, and an argument that the two individual actions together are legal makes the action as a whole legal is deeply flawed. Having sex is legal, and so is being in public. Is that a good argument that sex in public should be legal? No, because society has decided that when you put those two things together, you get something that is fundamentally different from either in isolation. Same with prostitution. You can argue that society is wrong, and I think make some good arguments for that, but George Carlin's argument is, quite frankly, a bad argument.
Article did not answer: If Europeans don't have GPS yet, how do their existing sat-navs work? And why is this new system only for Europe?
The Europeans do have GPS, it's publicly available and "global" is in the name. There is also the Russian GLONASS, which is basically the same. The EU doesn't have it's own network, though, which is important for political reasons (and only political reasons). Although there are some technical improvements Galileo makes over GPS, they certainly don't justify a new system. It's also available for everyone, or at least will be, if it ever gets operational (again, global).
That assumes 2 things: first, that they wouldn't have enough power to process any computer we could build no matter how large (which is quite likely if they are simulating the whole universe, after all they have to simulate quantum effects we don't cause as well as those we do), and that even if they didn't have effectively infinite processing power, we'd be able to build a quantum computer big enough to reach their upper limit. Since the larger a quantum system gets the less stable it gets (part of the reason we don't observe quantum effects on the macroscopic level), that is rather unlikely.
That is, obviously, an interesting thought experiment, but I think if our universe really is a Matrix-style simulation running on some computer it is highly unlikely we would ever be able to prove it, as any limitations could be built-in to our universe in such a way that they would appear perfectly normal.
The test can (maybe) figure out of one of the consequences that would result from our universe being a simulation does, in fact, exist, provided, of course, our theories about how the universe and simulations work are actually accurate. Or in other words, it might show that it is possible that the universe is a simulation. Even if we show that the consequence exists (the consequence is that energy particles have a limit, the theory being that a simulation would have an upper limit on what it is able to simulate, kind of similar to how your computer has an upper limit on what it can fit into it's RAM), we still won't know that it is actually the result of the universe being a simulation, or some other unknown cause, and even if we don't find an upper limit, it could mean either our methods are too limited to find it or that the simulation isn't limited in the way that we think.
Really, while the research is itself fascinating, it isn't some kind of definitive test. Such tests are phenomenally rare in physics, perhaps even non-existent (it's always possible to create another theory that fits the observations).
As a side note, saying the universe isn't "real" is almost self-contradictory, as we define existence and reality precisely by our observations of the universe itself. A holographic universe would be no less real for being holographic, if only because we would literally have no other possible meaning for the word "real" (the simulation that occurs in The Matrix movie is of a completely different nature from the holographic principle). I'd also somewhat object to even using the word "simulation" in the first place, as that implies it is a simulation of something, when we really have absolutely no reason to suspect that is indeed the case (holographic universes can be modeled by simulation cases, hence the use of the term).
Disclaimer: IANAP yet, but I'm studying in the field.
The converse to that is that anyone can "speak for" Anonymous, insofar as they represent a sub-group with a certain opinion. And if the majority of people who identify themselves as "Anonymous" or at least the majority of the vocally active individuals who do so espouse a certain belief, then "Anonymous" can be said to be saying that. Of course, not all the individuals might say or think that, but it doesn't matter if the de facto leaders all do.
And Anonymous most certainly does have de facto leaders, it'd not be able to do anything if it didn't. Even a mob has certain individuals who it listens to (usually the loudest), and that is what Anonymous is, a mob. Anyone who incites a large group of people who identify as "Anonymous" to a specific action is a leader, no matter how much Anonymous protests that they don't have them.
That's why I said "supposed to", most of these patents are in fact little more than ideas. Well technically all software patents are, but the point is that prior statement of the idea for a patent doesn't serve as prior art for a patent (although in the case of software patents it probably should, unless the patent is covering some radical new way of handling the problem, which I doubt this one does), and certainly doesn't if it is just the idea itself, not details about the implementation process, which sci-fi doesn't describe.