This is not a new technology, and have been under lab testing for a while now. The problem is that what's theoretically unbreakable isn't that secure in practice. Turns out it's quite hard to distinguish between eavesdropping and noise.
Old things get buried over time, it wasn't necessarily the original owner who buried it. As for the why, my guess is that they were used against attackers.
Solitary confinement reduces the harm done to others to pretty much zero, because the prisoner is physically isolated and thus incapable of causing trouble. What other method are speaking of that can guarantee that?
The subculture weirdoes dress in a certain common way exactly to be easily identifiable. It's about as subtle as holding a blinking "I'm a goth." sign over their head. So while I think that the software is impressive, I wouldn't worry about the privacy implications much, it's only able to profile extroverts who want to be noticed.
It's not hard to misinterpret a summary that's outright misleading. It's also not hard to misinterpret a study that makes a strategic omission about its main result: they only measured critical thinking about paintings, but that fact doesn't appear in the paper's title. An honest summary of the results would be that 'art makes you know more about art', which is hardly surprising.
You forgot the psychopats who want the power and the best toys. There are already many geeks who spy on other people (usually young women), now they can get paid for it, and will have access to the most powerful machines and the biggest vulnerability database. As ordinary hackers they couldn't even dream of power of that size.
That was my first thought. It's weird that the posters here filled pages with countermeasures like masks, projectors and damaging the system while ignoring the obvious solution. The day my local Tesco starts this shit will be my last day shopping there.
'I had to deal with their legacy code from the Stanford days and it had a lot of problems. They're research coders: more interested in writing code that works than code that's maintainable.
I don't think it's fair to criticize old code by today's standards.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but there's a third ingredient Ukraine doesn't have: money.
Maybe that's the problem. The schools don't like evidence that bullying is going on there.
I think he is talking mostly about academic research, which doesn't care much about using robots to make our lives easier.
Society advances because each generation gives way to the next one. It's time to pass the torch, old man.
This is not a new technology, and have been under lab testing for a while now. The problem is that what's theoretically unbreakable isn't that secure in practice. Turns out it's quite hard to distinguish between eavesdropping and noise.
Old things get buried over time, it wasn't necessarily the original owner who buried it. As for the why, my guess is that they were used against attackers.
That game already exists.
I'd love to have the problems of that guy who can afford to spend 10000$ a month on a game.
Solitary confinement reduces the harm done to others to pretty much zero, because the prisoner is physically isolated and thus incapable of causing trouble. What other method are speaking of that can guarantee that?
These children wouldn't exactly be like their parents either, that's the point.
That's not the only alternative to money. He could be proposing communism.
The subculture weirdoes dress in a certain common way exactly to be easily identifiable. It's about as subtle as holding a blinking "I'm a goth." sign over their head. So while I think that the software is impressive, I wouldn't worry about the privacy implications much, it's only able to profile extroverts who want to be noticed.
That much water would block the signal anyway, what's the point of bringing a phone underwater?
If robots were treated only as tools instead of weapons or pets, we wouldn't have to worry about an uprising.
According to RTFA, the courts would decide. The guy is talking about convicted criminals.
It's not hard to misinterpret a summary that's outright misleading. It's also not hard to misinterpret a study that makes a strategic omission about its main result: they only measured critical thinking about paintings, but that fact doesn't appear in the paper's title. An honest summary of the results would be that 'art makes you know more about art', which is hardly surprising.
Most of Australia is uninhabited desert, where even a nuclear accident couldn't cause much trouble.
Not to mention that this robot has to be remote controlled by a human operator, making it far inferior to a dog.
But where would they hire the hitmen after the site has closed?
And the notion that young people can't have routine isn't ageism?
You forgot the psychopats who want the power and the best toys. There are already many geeks who spy on other people (usually young women), now they can get paid for it, and will have access to the most powerful machines and the biggest vulnerability database. As ordinary hackers they couldn't even dream of power of that size.
That was my first thought. It's weird that the posters here filled pages with countermeasures like masks, projectors and damaging the system while ignoring the obvious solution. The day my local Tesco starts this shit will be my last day shopping there.
I don't think it's fair to criticize old code by today's standards.
How about letting people take responsibility for their own actions? Marking third-party pages is stupid.
I don't like Oracle and think their products are suck-ass bloatware, but Larry Ellison made that company.
And then he sold that company to the shareholders. His profit is the money he got for the shares.