That first bomb wasn't something that could be deployed as a threat to anyone. The first bomb that could actually do real harm to other countries was made the year after he died.
Carbon paper, and then the invention of the photocopier, made it possible for anyone to publish whatever they wanted, even in the Soviet Union (samizdat). That too is one-to-many. Same as books. Same as pamphlets (pamphleteering).
Every communication is either one-to-one (private letter sent via the post office, for example), or one-to-many. Even this post is one-to-many, same as samizdat and pamphleteers, or any other form of self-publishing. The ONLY difference is the ease of making multiple copies.
And I'm calling you out for being an illiterate idiot - I already quoted the section, with a link to it. According to their ToS, ANYONE can redistribute anything you post. That includes you, me, ABC, and even Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
And like many mutations, it has both advantages and disadvantages, which is why it has existed all these thousands of years. Think of it - how many guys would give their proverbial left nut to have multiple orgasms?
And yet industrious sleeve-rolling is still needed because no matter how much inspiration you have, it's all for naught if there's no execution. At some point you have to "bend metal."
It was possible to do asynchronous communications via get and post using hidden frames. No xmlhttprequest needed. There really isn't much new under the sun:-)
The internet created a false expectation. Without that false expectation, or shall I say the whole "information will set you free" bullshit (that has NEVER been true in the entire history of the human race), they would still be alive.
Information in the hands of the masses will never set them free, or whatever, because the masses are too stupid, naive, or living in a bubble to figure out what information is true and what is fake (dihydrogen monixide, anti-vaxxers, the whole alternate facts crap), and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Everyone has "blind spots" where, no matter how intelligent they are overall, they're dumb as shit. The internet lets people be dumb as shit about ever more stuff that they have a little knowledge about - and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Demagogues love when people have "a little knowledge." People with a little knowledge can't see the two or more sides to an issue. To them, all the facts (true or not) they have point to an inevitable conclusion. The internet has given unprecedented power to manipulate large numbers of people for fun and profit to too many bad actors - and that includes the personal data aggregators such as facebook and google, as well as scammers and ne'er-do-wells all over the world.
A "segregated internet", with countries regulating what traffic can come in and out, would solve more problems than it would create. Totalitarian regimes already do it, so why not block them off completely? Why not completely block countries that sell counterfeit goods, that are the home of catfishers and email scams, or allow bulletproof hosting of kiddie porn and money laundering?
You completely missed my point. "Developed on paper" is NOT in the same class as "implemented in some form", it's just a false equivalency and should be called out as such.
It's also a terrible career choice nowadays, unless you live in Bangalore or Hyalabad. And we all have heard the "half-life of a software engineer" quotes, and how companies today like to hire them young and naive, work them to death, then dump them for the next round of fresh meat.
Not in WW2, he didn't. And he didn't ever have anything approaching a deterrent force. The closest he came was RDS4, which was produced the year after he died.
It obviously didn't turn out the way they expected it to for all those who thought the internet would enable democracy. You could ask them, but they're dead - they put their trust in the power of information to set people free. Never happened in the entire history of the human race.
You are correct in that I was making the point that the web has been the most visible source of the failure of modern technology, but it may have just been a freudian slip, because the internet itself is also part and parcel of the problem. One network connecting the whole world, that's just tooooo big a single point of attack and failure. Even electrical grids are segregated so that a problem in one grid doesn't black out electrical power on the other side of the world.
So here we have the situation where we try to create virtual segregated networks inside a non-segregated network. This is a non-solution that is doomed to fail over and over.
ABC has the legal right, via Facebook's ToS, to redistribute what is posted on Facebook. Same as EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. You post something on Facebook, I don't need your permission to repost it. Read the ToS and you'll see just how relevant it is.
Good luck taking them to court. You'd lose. This is not a boilerplate shrinkwrap license that you didn't see until after you bought the product, and it's certainly not "massive pages of legalize (sic) that no one in their right mind would wade through". Obviously you never even read it.
It's a dumb idea. How do you determine the tax on each individual robot? Better to have a manufacturer's excise tax - it's just a percentage of the invoice. We had this before we introduced the GST, and it was much easier to administer, in part because it didn't tax services (but since services consume manufactured goods, they contributed indirectly in direct proportion to their consumption of goods).
Taxing robots will end up with too many loopholes and people trying to game the system.
you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Someone shared your sh*t? Too bad - you have ZERO control over it at that point, even if you delete it.
There's no such thing as a "perfect genome." We're all mutants. Some estimates are that the individual human has 60 mutations, other estimates put it as high as 200.
What I don't understand is where they think a woolly mammoth is going to live. It's not like the arctic and sub-arctic habitats are going to be around long enough to repopulate them. Shaving them to keep them cool is going to expose them to increased rates of skin cancers. Maybe air-conditioned zoos, paying the bills by harvesting those huge tusks.
Or better yet, give them a hammer and tell them they either destroy their phone or face a fine and destruction of their phone while they watch. Works great with illegal radar detectors.
Slashdot Mirror
taking care of elderly people or working with kids in schools -- jobs which humans are particularly well suited for.
Ever deal with someone with dementia? It's not pretty. It's exactly the sort of work that robots can handle better than humans.
That first bomb wasn't something that could be deployed as a threat to anyone. The first bomb that could actually do real harm to other countries was made the year after he died.
Your allies are laughing at Trump.
Your military has been emasculated by Trump giving China a blow job over Taiwan.
Your enemies are within.
Carbon paper, and then the invention of the photocopier, made it possible for anyone to publish whatever they wanted, even in the Soviet Union (samizdat). That too is one-to-many. Same as books. Same as pamphlets (pamphleteering).
Every communication is either one-to-one (private letter sent via the post office, for example), or one-to-many. Even this post is one-to-many, same as samizdat and pamphleteers, or any other form of self-publishing. The ONLY difference is the ease of making multiple copies.
And I'm calling you out for being an illiterate idiot - I already quoted the section, with a link to it. According to their ToS, ANYONE can redistribute anything you post. That includes you, me, ABC, and even Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
And like many mutations, it has both advantages and disadvantages, which is why it has existed all these thousands of years. Think of it - how many guys would give their proverbial left nut to have multiple orgasms?
And yet industrious sleeve-rolling is still needed because no matter how much inspiration you have, it's all for naught if there's no execution. At some point you have to "bend metal."
It was possible to do asynchronous communications via get and post using hidden frames. No xmlhttprequest needed. There really isn't much new under the sun :-)
The internet created a false expectation. Without that false expectation, or shall I say the whole "information will set you free" bullshit (that has NEVER been true in the entire history of the human race), they would still be alive.
Information in the hands of the masses will never set them free, or whatever, because the masses are too stupid, naive, or living in a bubble to figure out what information is true and what is fake (dihydrogen monixide, anti-vaxxers, the whole alternate facts crap), and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Everyone has "blind spots" where, no matter how intelligent they are overall, they're dumb as shit. The internet lets people be dumb as shit about ever more stuff that they have a little knowledge about - and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Demagogues love when people have "a little knowledge." People with a little knowledge can't see the two or more sides to an issue. To them, all the facts (true or not) they have point to an inevitable conclusion. The internet has given unprecedented power to manipulate large numbers of people for fun and profit to too many bad actors - and that includes the personal data aggregators such as facebook and google, as well as scammers and ne'er-do-wells all over the world.
A "segregated internet", with countries regulating what traffic can come in and out, would solve more problems than it would create. Totalitarian regimes already do it, so why not block them off completely? Why not completely block countries that sell counterfeit goods, that are the home of catfishers and email scams, or allow bulletproof hosting of kiddie porn and money laundering?
You completely missed my point. "Developed on paper" is NOT in the same class as "implemented in some form", it's just a false equivalency and should be called out as such.
It's also a terrible career choice nowadays, unless you live in Bangalore or Hyalabad. And we all have heard the "half-life of a software engineer" quotes, and how companies today like to hire them young and naive, work them to death, then dump them for the next round of fresh meat.
Not in WW2, he didn't. And he didn't ever have anything approaching a deterrent force. The closest he came was RDS4, which was produced the year after he died.
It obviously didn't turn out the way they expected it to for all those who thought the internet would enable democracy. You could ask them, but they're dead - they put their trust in the power of information to set people free. Never happened in the entire history of the human race.
You are correct in that I was making the point that the web has been the most visible source of the failure of modern technology, but it may have just been a freudian slip, because the internet itself is also part and parcel of the problem. One network connecting the whole world, that's just tooooo big a single point of attack and failure. Even electrical grids are segregated so that a problem in one grid doesn't black out electrical power on the other side of the world.
So here we have the situation where we try to create virtual segregated networks inside a non-segregated network. This is a non-solution that is doomed to fail over and over.
Finally, someone else who understands the difference. You go to the head of the class :-)
ABC has the legal right, via Facebook's ToS, to redistribute what is posted on Facebook. Same as EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. You post something on Facebook, I don't need your permission to repost it. Read the ToS and you'll see just how relevant it is.
Good luck taking them to court. You'd lose. This is not a boilerplate shrinkwrap license that you didn't see until after you bought the product, and it's certainly not "massive pages of legalize (sic) that no one in their right mind would wade through". Obviously you never even read it.
I know people don't even read the summary any more, but Facebook is mentioned in the TITLE. So Facebook's terms of use are totally relevant.
If one were to eat tofu for dinner, is that not akin to consuming human flesh for the same purpose?
Robo-post detected. Humans don't eat tofu. At least not willingly. Please report for disassembly.
It's a dumb idea. How do you determine the tax on each individual robot? Better to have a manufacturer's excise tax - it's just a percentage of the invoice. We had this before we introduced the GST, and it was much easier to administer, in part because it didn't tax services (but since services consume manufactured goods, they contributed indirectly in direct proportion to their consumption of goods).
Taxing robots will end up with too many loopholes and people trying to game the system.
you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Someone shared your sh*t? Too bad - you have ZERO control over it at that point, even if you delete it.
There's no such thing as a "perfect genome." We're all mutants. Some estimates are that the individual human has 60 mutations, other estimates put it as high as 200.
What I don't understand is where they think a woolly mammoth is going to live. It's not like the arctic and sub-arctic habitats are going to be around long enough to repopulate them. Shaving them to keep them cool is going to expose them to increased rates of skin cancers. Maybe air-conditioned zoos, paying the bills by harvesting those huge tusks.
Or better yet, give them a hammer and tell them they either destroy their phone or face a fine and destruction of their phone while they watch. Works great with illegal radar detectors.
We are lowering the bar. We should darwinism simply kick in.
We did. The result was Trump. It's a work in progress, but with him in charge, there's the potential to get rid of ALL those pesky humans.