nano is a pile of shit. It doesn't even support searching with "/". I don't know much of vim, for example I use arrow keys instead of the letter based controls, but nano is too much lacking for my needs.
I guess it is hard to do actually any blackmail of a specific person, as if it is known that a medical device is hacked, the owner of the medical device could just call medical service, and then they can survive it, unless of course the attacker also controls the devices of the ambulance etc. So it can really only be used for targeted murder, or for a less specific blackmail of the form "I have hacked 100 medical devices of people in your city. If you don't pay, I'll kill them one by one." sent to majors or other authorities.
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed.
since there is nothing stopping Jihadis from developing their own encryption codes and going totally dark on the authorities everywhere.
This is what they want to achieve, as when encryption is backdoored anywhere, its much easier to argue that everybody who uses non-backdoored encryption is a has something to hide and is a criminal suspect.
Sometimes you want to test something, then you might need to add an if or so. With braces, you just add it, and you can immediately execute it. With python, you have to get indentation right. And you never know where a block ends, unless you look at the indentation level.
And to GP: the next time you have to write something in python for whatever reason (unfortunately python is almost unavoidable), try kate block mode.
All these days I hear about batteries having more power, charging faster, and so on. Do these developments make it actually into consumer products? Never. I guess they get abandoned because of some problems.
I do think that thanks to the abundant use of rechargeable battery technology, and whole industries like the car industry waiting to get "disrupted" (to use the new SV startup term; its a phenomenon as old as mankind) by battery driven solutions, so there is alot of attention on the technology. However, lots of this stuff the press generates doesn't make it into production, so why do they write about such early research?
My theory: They wanted to take revenge for the killing of Jihadi John, by mounting a terrorist attack. Of course, he was killed by US forces, and not french ones, but I don't think the IS cares. After all, there is quite good media coverage of the incident worldwide. It seems their top priority here was to strike fast. They wanted to show "see how fast we can take revenge". And perhaps they've used france because there they already had prepared terrorists waiting for the call to strike. And I guess that preparing a terrorist attack is easier in france than in the US, at least right now.
Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate.
So, you applying stereotypes here? You assume that women are so weak and fragile that they must be forced to decide to work in tech? Can't they decide for themselves?
Adding opportunities for others doesn't reduce your own opportunities any more than opening up an atheist club diminishes Christian churches.
In fact, I'm even fine with "girl" boot camps and so on. I really don't care whether they exist or not. Just don't cover all of tech news with these SJW things. What would you say if the new york times had an article about atheists every day, the finance part about how "atheists are the unknown potential", the culture part about "art hall announces atheist exhibition", the main page about atheist boot camps?
The second reason why I don't like these SJW "lets have more woman workers" initiatives is because they mainly stem from companies wanting to lower salaries for their engineers by changing the market, having a common source with the H1B lobbying those companies do for the same reason.
Instead of yet another codegirls.org initiative, google has a very simple way to do something to fight against sexism. Their vast ad network delivers not just malware, it also serves as the platform for many sexist ad campaigns or ad messages. Why don't they use their influence to get rid of sexist ads? This surely isn't the only sexist aspect of society, but it wouldn't just cure symptoms.
Certainly not when a high ranking taliban was treated in a doctors without borders hospital, and the US government started bombing that hospital, breaking international treaties, killing innocents, burning down a hospital.
They aren't some super secret thing you try to keep secret from everybody. You not just leak your DNA everywhere, you leak your fingerprints too. And unlike passwords, you can't just simply change them.
That's why you really should get the Starship app on your IPhone! It notifies you with a big splash "Robot ahead" if you come near one, so that you still can keep looking at your phone. The paid pro version even makes the robots avoid you instead of you having to avoid them. Only works if GPS enabled.
Telling a woman that she can't have a fourth child is in my eyes not as bad as telling her grand-grand daughter that her child died in battle, or her not being able to feed her child.
But to answer your question: I haven't thought about it myself yet tbh, but yes, to be consequent I would have to limit the number of my children. I guess I'd chose a value where if everybody had it we'd have a stable population.
Yes, I agree, human population is self-regulating. The regulation mechanisms are usually "war", "hunger" and "thirst". I'd rather have those eliminated than having no population control.
The problem is extreme consumerism of a select few.
Even if every human lived like francis of asissi, which they won't because they are humans, and not every human wants to live like a monk, we still would face the problem of overpopulation a few billion humans down the line. The earth is limited, it has limited space. I don't want to live in a world where the environment is destroyed so that we can get room for feeding / clothing / housing / etc. billions of additional humans.
One day we find out how to eliminate natural causes of death, we perhaps might want to stop reproducing completely. Otherwise this little planet of ours gets crowded too fast.
20 billion humans, so be it. Ok with me. But unlimited growth leads to collapse. Why isn't this recognized on a global scale, why is population control frowned upon? And I don't say an one child policy is good. I guess a limit to have a stable population would be more between 2 and 3 children, as some people don't want to get children, some die, etc.
My biggest fear isn't machines taking over the planet, enslaving/killing all humans. My fear is that one day a small group of people uses machines to take over the planet, enslaving/killing all other humans, and becoming gods themselves.
You really shouldn't centralize these services. Right now we still can pull the plug, press the off button, etc, but from day to day it gets harder to get the machines that follow some anonymous master out of our lives.
After all the SjW and "women in tech" stories, finally a story at least a bit related to age discrimination in IT. Unlike most slashdotters I guess, I'm still young myself, but I do think that both young and old should have the same chances to get a job.
No, this is not because of advertising. The bbc tries to make copying the content hard, and uses digital restrictions management. They even supported EME: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
Slashdot Mirror
And the googleability.
nano is a pile of shit. It doesn't even support searching with "/". I don't know much of vim, for example I use arrow keys instead of the letter based controls, but nano is too much lacking for my needs.
I guess it is hard to do actually any blackmail of a specific person, as if it is known that a medical device is hacked, the owner of the medical device could just call medical service, and then they can survive it, unless of course the attacker also controls the devices of the ambulance etc. So it can really only be used for targeted murder, or for a less specific blackmail of the form "I have hacked 100 medical devices of people in your city. If you don't pay, I'll kill them one by one." sent to majors or other authorities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't know who of them is worse.
Quoting the BIBLE:
those who oppose the LORD will be shattered. He will thunder against them from heaven
source
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
source
The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish.
source
If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed.
source
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
source
Arise , O LORD; let not man prevail : let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
source
Only because your religious text tells you something to do, you aren't excused to actually do it.
since there is nothing stopping Jihadis from developing their own encryption codes and going totally dark on the authorities everywhere.
This is what they want to achieve, as when encryption is backdoored anywhere, its much easier to argue that everybody who uses non-backdoored encryption is a has something to hide and is a criminal suspect.
Sometimes you want to test something, then you might need to add an if or so. With braces, you just add it, and you can immediately execute it. With python, you have to get indentation right. And you never know where a block ends, unless you look at the indentation level.
And to GP: the next time you have to write something in python for whatever reason (unfortunately python is almost unavoidable), try kate block mode.
But its the cloud!
All these days I hear about batteries having more power, charging faster, and so on. Do these developments make it actually into consumer products? Never. I guess they get abandoned because of some problems.
I do think that thanks to the abundant use of rechargeable battery technology, and whole industries like the car industry waiting to get "disrupted" (to use the new SV startup term; its a phenomenon as old as mankind) by battery driven solutions, so there is alot of attention on the technology. However, lots of this stuff the press generates doesn't make it into production, so why do they write about such early research?
My theory: They wanted to take revenge for the killing of Jihadi John, by mounting a terrorist attack. Of course, he was killed by US forces, and not french ones, but I don't think the IS cares. After all, there is quite good media coverage of the incident worldwide. It seems their top priority here was to strike fast. They wanted to show "see how fast we can take revenge". And perhaps they've used france because there they already had prepared terrorists waiting for the call to strike. And I guess that preparing a terrorist attack is easier in france than in the US, at least right now.
Not the original AC, but still answering.
Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate.
So, you applying stereotypes here? You assume that women are so weak and fragile that they must be forced to decide to work in tech? Can't they decide for themselves?
Adding opportunities for others doesn't reduce your own opportunities any more than opening up an atheist club diminishes Christian churches.
In fact, I'm even fine with "girl" boot camps and so on. I really don't care whether they exist or not. Just don't cover all of tech news with these SJW things. What would you say if the new york times had an article about atheists every day, the finance part about how "atheists are the unknown potential", the culture part about "art hall announces atheist exhibition", the main page about atheist boot camps?
The second reason why I don't like these SJW "lets have more woman workers" initiatives is because they mainly stem from companies wanting to lower salaries for their engineers by changing the market, having a common source with the H1B lobbying those companies do for the same reason.
Instead of yet another codegirls.org initiative, google has a very simple way to do something to fight against sexism. Their vast ad network delivers not just malware, it also serves as the platform for many sexist ad campaigns or ad messages. Why don't they use their influence to get rid of sexist ads? This surely isn't the only sexist aspect of society, but it wouldn't just cure symptoms.
Certainly not when a high ranking taliban was treated in a doctors without borders hospital, and the US government started bombing that hospital, breaking international treaties, killing innocents, burning down a hospital.
See, even here the system fails.
... and this comment would give too few space to write down the beatiful proof?
They aren't some super secret thing you try to keep secret from everybody. You not just leak your DNA everywhere, you leak your fingerprints too. And unlike passwords, you can't just simply change them.
That's why you really should get the Starship app on your IPhone! It notifies you with a big splash "Robot ahead" if you come near one, so that you still can keep looking at your phone. The paid pro version even makes the robots avoid you instead of you having to avoid them. Only works if GPS enabled.
Okay, its brooklyn, but close: http://newyork.seriouseats.com...
??
Telling a woman that she can't have a fourth child is in my eyes not as bad as telling her grand-grand daughter that her child died in battle, or her not being able to feed her child.
But to answer your question: I haven't thought about it myself yet tbh, but yes, to be consequent I would have to limit the number of my children. I guess I'd chose a value where if everybody had it we'd have a stable population.
Yes, I agree, human population is self-regulating. The regulation mechanisms are usually "war", "hunger" and "thirst". I'd rather have those eliminated than having no population control.
The problem is extreme consumerism of a select few.
Even if every human lived like francis of asissi, which they won't because they are humans, and not every human wants to live like a monk, we still would face the problem of overpopulation a few billion humans down the line. The earth is limited, it has limited space. I don't want to live in a world where the environment is destroyed so that we can get room for feeding / clothing / housing / etc. billions of additional humans.
One day we find out how to eliminate natural causes of death, we perhaps might want to stop reproducing completely. Otherwise this little planet of ours gets crowded too fast.
20 billion humans, so be it. Ok with me. But unlimited growth leads to collapse. Why isn't this recognized on a global scale, why is population control frowned upon? And I don't say an one child policy is good. I guess a limit to have a stable population would be more between 2 and 3 children, as some people don't want to get children, some die, etc.
My biggest fear isn't machines taking over the planet, enslaving/killing all humans. My fear is that one day a small group of people uses machines to take over the planet, enslaving/killing all other humans, and becoming gods themselves.
You really shouldn't centralize these services. Right now we still can pull the plug, press the off button, etc, but from day to day it gets harder to get the machines that follow some anonymous master out of our lives.
After all the SjW and "women in tech" stories, finally a story at least a bit related to age discrimination in IT. Unlike most slashdotters I guess, I'm still young myself, but I do think that both young and old should have the same chances to get a job.
Don't use farm land to farm stuff. Farming is highly inefficient, photovoltaics is much better.
If you farm crops for fuel, you are doing it wrong.
No, this is not because of advertising. The bbc tries to make copying the content hard, and uses digital restrictions management. They even supported EME: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...