It has been around for a few years now, what makes you think that it will be better 10 years later? Currencies doesn't take years to be actually usable.
While bitcoin has failed as a currency, it is true that it could be used for money transfer. If the receiving party cashes out regularly, there is not much risk involved, and the transfer itself is fast and cheap. The problem is with the cashing out part: just like Paypal or Mastercard refused to relay money to Wikileaks, bitcoin exchanges can also deny doing business with certain people. The advantages of P2P are lost when you want to get some money for your coins.
As it is always with politics, what you see is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm guessing there are some deals in the background, and these organisations will get something in return. Which is exactly the kind of thing that made me a secularist.
The real intrusions are very hard to prove, the hacks that get discovered are the ones that couldn't manage to be subtle enough. Even if there are signs, unless it is a lulzsec-like troIl group doing it publicly the insurance company will refuse to pay. IT security insurance will just make companies overconfident and worrying even less about security, and when they get hacked they will find that the insurance company isn't paying for the huge losses as they can't be proven.
Worse still, after paying a lot for an expert who tells you to do things that seem weird and not what you were expecting, you have no way to tell whether or not the security policy accomplished anything at all.
Sure you can. Hire a whitehat. Security, like everything in IT, needs to be tested.
The problem is that with a restrictive licence the owner can change the price whenever they want, or decide who will get a licence and who doesn't, thus giving them complete control and effective monopoly over a market segment.
malware-infested pirated movies, causing the unlucky buyer significant data loss
Why the hell would you want to execute a movie? The data loss is due to the device being bad, if it has been returned it was likely because of a reason.
Organic food means safety - any health hazards of them would have been found in the hundred years they were consumed. GM food, however, is a new product, and thus should be subject to very rigorous tests and regulations. Even then, there could be longterm effects that can't be spotted, so labeling them would make it easy to get a certain product off the shelves were it found to be harmful.
High school doesn't teach you a profession, it just shows you all the things you can learn and do. It's better for a student to realize they can't stand dissection in high school than in medical school when they have already chosen to be a doctor.
I haven't used Firefox for long, but my experience was that in order to keep the browser lightweight many basic features (like mouse gestures or being able to disable scripts) were stripped from it, available only in addons. So, while the browser alone doesn't use much memory, you are effectively being forced to use 3-5 addons to achieve a normal functionality. And that means it will consume a lot of memory.
Shuttles are expensive compared to rockets. Quoting numbers from the US budget is irrelevant in this case. Shuttles were built in the cold war, with a military purpose, as in theory they could be refilled and relaunched quickly after a mission. The goal wasn't to build an efficient spacecraft, which is why today's commercial or Russian rockets are cheaper.
Western ethics is mostly based on the Bible which clearly states that "Thou shalt not kill.".
Drone killings are not unethical in and of themselves, but using drones removes most of the social restraint we have against unethical killing. Unlike using a gun, no human "feels" the killing, there are no witnesses, and there is a diluted sense of responsibility.
There IS a human controlling the drone, pushing the button, and seeing the kill through camera. This would be somewhat different with autonomous robots, but there will always be a human giving the command to kill or "go out hunting". An army can't function efficiently when the responsibilities are unclear, there will always be one responsible for the drones. Also, how is this different from ordering your dog to kill?
Military drones are not autonomous, but controlled by humans. Killing with drones is unethical the same way killing with a gun or with your bare hands is.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been around for a few years now, what makes you think that it will be better 10 years later? Currencies doesn't take years to be actually usable.
Satanists don't give presents. Unless it's a letterbomb.
While bitcoin has failed as a currency, it is true that it could be used for money transfer. If the receiving party cashes out regularly, there is not much risk involved, and the transfer itself is fast and cheap. The problem is with the cashing out part: just like Paypal or Mastercard refused to relay money to Wikileaks, bitcoin exchanges can also deny doing business with certain people. The advantages of P2P are lost when you want to get some money for your coins.
As it is always with politics, what you see is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm guessing there are some deals in the background, and these organisations will get something in return. Which is exactly the kind of thing that made me a secularist.
The real intrusions are very hard to prove, the hacks that get discovered are the ones that couldn't manage to be subtle enough. Even if there are signs, unless it is a lulzsec-like troIl group doing it publicly the insurance company will refuse to pay. IT security insurance will just make companies overconfident and worrying even less about security, and when they get hacked they will find that the insurance company isn't paying for the huge losses as they can't be proven.
Worse still, after paying a lot for an expert who tells you to do things that seem weird and not what you were expecting, you have no way to tell whether or not the security policy accomplished anything at all.
Sure you can. Hire a whitehat. Security, like everything in IT, needs to be tested.
The problem is that with a restrictive licence the owner can change the price whenever they want, or decide who will get a licence and who doesn't, thus giving them complete control and effective monopoly over a market segment.
Because it's not a book but a language standard. If you want your standards to be recognized, keep them open and free of charge.
Even midgets have normal sized heads.
But controlling communication and infromation access of the people. The more ignorant they stay, the better for the Taliban.
They are already disconnecting foreign sites on general domains that are in the way of their market interests. What is it if not an aggressive action?
Would you call a physical sabotage warfare? Malware is part of cyber espionage.
malware-infested pirated movies, causing the unlucky buyer significant data loss
Why the hell would you want to execute a movie? The data loss is due to the device being bad, if it has been returned it was likely because of a reason.
Which is completely different than GMO, as it's a slow gradual process, in which bad mutations go extinct naturally.
Organic food means safety - any health hazards of them would have been found in the hundred years they were consumed. GM food, however, is a new product, and thus should be subject to very rigorous tests and regulations. Even then, there could be longterm effects that can't be spotted, so labeling them would make it easy to get a certain product off the shelves were it found to be harmful.
There are millions of places where a circuit board can break, so it's unlikely that it will break twice in the same spot.
If a program can get unlimited privileges then it's a bug in Windows. If Safari can do it, any piece of malware can too.
High school doesn't teach you a profession, it just shows you all the things you can learn and do. It's better for a student to realize they can't stand dissection in high school than in medical school when they have already chosen to be a doctor.
Should we trust Wired to report honestly on this case?
I haven't used Firefox for long, but my experience was that in order to keep the browser lightweight many basic features (like mouse gestures or being able to disable scripts) were stripped from it, available only in addons. So, while the browser alone doesn't use much memory, you are effectively being forced to use 3-5 addons to achieve a normal functionality. And that means it will consume a lot of memory.
whether sufficiently useful means to escape the sun's gravity well
You can't do that without a gravitational slingshot, our engines are not strong enough to reach escape velocity by themselves.
or merely to reach a useful "height" fast enough, and stay there long enough before being dragged back in towards the sun
The problem is that the more elliptical your orbit is, the more energy it needs to get it there, so at the end of the day it might not worth it.
But the biggest problem with this in my opinion is that orbits that are not in the ecliptic are unstable because of the planets' gravity.
Well, civil disobedience is, by definition, breaking the law, so the guy was right.
Shuttles are expensive compared to rockets. Quoting numbers from the US budget is irrelevant in this case. Shuttles were built in the cold war, with a military purpose, as in theory they could be refilled and relaunched quickly after a mission. The goal wasn't to build an efficient spacecraft, which is why today's commercial or Russian rockets are cheaper.
Killing is not unethical per se.
Western ethics is mostly based on the Bible which clearly states that "Thou shalt not kill.".
Drone killings are not unethical in and of themselves, but using drones removes most of the social restraint we have against unethical killing. Unlike using a gun, no human "feels" the killing, there are no witnesses, and there is a diluted sense of responsibility.
There IS a human controlling the drone, pushing the button, and seeing the kill through camera. This would be somewhat different with autonomous robots, but there will always be a human giving the command to kill or "go out hunting". An army can't function efficiently when the responsibilities are unclear, there will always be one responsible for the drones. Also, how is this different from ordering your dog to kill?
Military drones are not autonomous, but controlled by humans. Killing with drones is unethical the same way killing with a gun or with your bare hands is.