Trying to search for overflows of values only works if the simulation in question uses a simple discrete representation of them. Overflow wouldn't really occur if the simulation uses normalized numbers like we do with floats.
Come on, I was just trying to make a joke here. Of course I don't seriously think that the US wants a war with China, they both depend on each other. Unfortunately, Slashdot has a terrible sense of humour, I should start to use smileys:-( As for Pearl Harbor, it's a fact that the American elite wanted a war, but the general population was unconvinced. Tensions with Japan were rising, and the US stopped their oil exports putting Japan in a position where they couldn't continue their war on China unless they got oil from elsewhere. The battleships were stationed at Pearl Harbor, but the carriers were moved out before the attack. While it can't be said for certain that the American elite let the attack happen deliberately, it wouldn't have been the first time they pulled that trick.
I could never understood why America doesn't improve its cybersecurity, but if the plan is the same as with Pearl Harbor that would explain it. The US leaves their systems open and lures China to attack them to get a convincing casus belli for their counterattack, just like they did in WW2.
This is a strong claim, I wonder if there's any proof to back it up. I've never noticed a bias towards Google's services in search, the only time I remember is when they displayed a warning on Youtube saying that it only works in Chrome. That was somewhat distasteful but has been removed since, and in fact I used Google to find another email service without much problem. Can someone show search terms that have a bias?
If Google ever tried that people would just switch to other services. The entry cost is relatively low and Google doesn't really have a monopoly on anything, there are other search engines, email providers, browsers and phones. Competition ensures that they never can pull a stunt like that.
That this is a patent covering 3D printing is a misunderstanding of the patent by TFA. The patent doesn't talk about 3D printers but manufacturing machinery, defined broad enough to include almost anything from CNC machines to casting. They don't have to wait until 3D printers become commonplace, because this patent covers much more.
Of course you can have a right to property, for example in many places you have a right to healthcare. A universal human right is a different thing and I agree with you in that they should only contain natural rights, however this isn't the case.
Yeah, I should've RTFA. The Nature headline misleadingly talks about prediction but there is no mention of that in the article, just pointing out common patterns between economic and genetical data. It's hard to tell what exactly the paper claims without reading it.
By that logic we should get rid of the Pythagorean theorem, it's become too common and irritating. Could it be that the reason so many people point this out is because it's true?
This is not a direct proof of snooping, just that the German government has the ability to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean that it abuses that power in warrantless monitoring.
Simple monitoring can be circumvented by encryption, and opensource software is safe from backdoors. It's much easier to defend against spying than censorship.
What I'm saying is, when I send out an unencrypted email open for anyone to snoop on I don't have expectations of privacy. The situation would be different if email protocols were encrypted an Google would take advantage of their position of being one end of the communication to read them.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it's dangerous to do it in the dark. He would have to wait six months.
Jumping on the opposite side of Earth would make him fall in the other direction.
Trying to search for overflows of values only works if the simulation in question uses a simple discrete representation of them. Overflow wouldn't really occur if the simulation uses normalized numbers like we do with floats.
Come on, I was just trying to make a joke here. Of course I don't seriously think that the US wants a war with China, they both depend on each other. Unfortunately, Slashdot has a terrible sense of humour, I should start to use smileys :-(
As for Pearl Harbor, it's a fact that the American elite wanted a war, but the general population was unconvinced. Tensions with Japan were rising, and the US stopped their oil exports putting Japan in a position where they couldn't continue their war on China unless they got oil from elsewhere. The battleships were stationed at Pearl Harbor, but the carriers were moved out before the attack. While it can't be said for certain that the American elite let the attack happen deliberately, it wouldn't have been the first time they pulled that trick.
I could never understood why America doesn't improve its cybersecurity, but if the plan is the same as with Pearl Harbor that would explain it. The US leaves their systems open and lures China to attack them to get a convincing casus belli for their counterattack, just like they did in WW2.
This is a strong claim, I wonder if there's any proof to back it up. I've never noticed a bias towards Google's services in search, the only time I remember is when they displayed a warning on Youtube saying that it only works in Chrome. That was somewhat distasteful but has been removed since, and in fact I used Google to find another email service without much problem. Can someone show search terms that have a bias?
If Google ever tried that people would just switch to other services. The entry cost is relatively low and Google doesn't really have a monopoly on anything, there are other search engines, email providers, browsers and phones. Competition ensures that they never can pull a stunt like that.
That this is a patent covering 3D printing is a misunderstanding of the patent by TFA. The patent doesn't talk about 3D printers but manufacturing machinery, defined broad enough to include almost anything from CNC machines to casting. They don't have to wait until 3D printers become commonplace, because this patent covers much more.
The reason they don't get donations is that their accounts were frozen.
Which is why I find most of these scandals pointless. Her PhD is worthless regardless whether she copied it or not.
Flying cars!
2. Cheap and easy ways to provide light for the world
Windows?
But unless the UN indicates that it will respect whois privacy there is no reason to believe they would be better.
Care to explain how does the UN come into this? This is between the USA and the EU.
I don't think they cracked SSL, rather they plant a trojan on target machines.
Of course you can have a right to property, for example in many places you have a right to healthcare. A universal human right is a different thing and I agree with you in that they should only contain natural rights, however this isn't the case.
Yeah, I should've RTFA. The Nature headline misleadingly talks about prediction but there is no mention of that in the article, just pointing out common patterns between economic and genetical data. It's hard to tell what exactly the paper claims without reading it.
By that logic we should get rid of the Pythagorean theorem, it's become too common and irritating. Could it be that the reason so many people point this out is because it's true?
As long as they obtain a warranty before doing it i see no problem.
Maybe it's the other way around, I would say it's more likely that economic success causes immigration, and therefore diversity.
This is not a direct proof of snooping, just that the German government has the ability to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean that it abuses that power in warrantless monitoring.
Simple monitoring can be circumvented by encryption, and opensource software is safe from backdoors. It's much easier to defend against spying than censorship.
How in hell do you tell the age of someone connecting to your network?
What I'm saying is, when I send out an unencrypted email open for anyone to snoop on I don't have expectations of privacy. The situation would be different if email protocols were encrypted an Google would take advantage of their position of being one end of the communication to read them.
Email protocols are unsecured, sensitive mails should be encrypted.