For a spacecraft moving infinitesimally close to c that is more than enough. It will last for at least a billions years. Just don't decelerate or you're screwed.
I bought that book and Catch 22 recently to better understand Trump's opposition.
All political sides use the same "playbook" to varying degrees.
What is more disturbing to me though is that when I look at what is supposed to be the enlightened, reasoning, rational and liberal side what I see is pretty bad.
We all know about Christian evangelicals, neo-Nazis the far right, ultra-nationalists and so on. There's a hot bed of extremism however on the other side that is really only coming to the fore.
There are people who believe in superior, master morality, it doesn't actually have to come from a supernatural being. There are people who think not being far-right means being far-left. There are people who take positive notions such as the movement against racism and turn them into irrational negative notions. There are people that think not being racist means hating your own race yet loving all overs. There are people who think that not being ultra-nationalistic means hating your nation and it's people. There are people in camps that are traditionally liberal and very for freedom of speech lobbying for not only speech crime but thought crime.
This kind of madness has been going on for a long time but has started to reach new heights. There are plenty of liberals that likely simply didn't vote because of it or even voted for Trump as a part of a backlash.
It's a kind of weird transition period in the west where we have been moving away from one set of extremes but are now crossing the threshold moving into the same opposite extreme. The methods these people use are pretty subversive. To take one simple example, Islamophobia when it was originally created gives a list of what is clearly wrongthink and rightthink. In schools propaganda is being taught with the aim of reinforcing the notion of blasphemy by teaching that simple words, opinions and beliefs are basically as bad as genocide, by that I don't even mean things like if someone believes in genocide, merely if people don't like certain things.
I use it and the main reason is that when I pay £500 for a device upfront and not on financing so that it's not part owned by the phone company I expect it to be personal and not full with crapware. I also like to be able to keep updating Android. Manufacturers will sometimes stop updating their ROMs where as custom ROMs will still keep going. Having a fully rooted and accessible OS is also important. There are a number of problems with custom ROMs though:
* Android needs a lot of work in being upgradable while retaining data. I am not sure if it was meant to be easier than it is but because of things like "the cloud" I think local settings and so on has been allowed to become a mess. There's no standards enforcement to my knowledge. Trying to restore a device between updates is annoying. Theoretically though with the right standards, discipline and organisation it shouldn't be a problem and the process should be seamless. It's not a hard problem in computing. It's just neglected. When you poke under the hood you can see some of the workings of an organised system but in practice things tend to be a pain in the ass.
* A lot of manufacturers don't make this easy. Some devices can be hard to flash. Often manufacturers only let their software work with their ROM or non-custom ROMs. I have had to decompile and recompile to fix this at least once. There's no legitimate reason for the incompatibility. It just checks some ROM property and opts not to work.
* Similarly you can have problems such as low level drivers not being available and potentially losing access to more exotic peripherals on the phone. Similarly developer support even for major devices might not be brilliant.
Fluffler. Stay out of the IT industry. It's horrible these days. You'll spend all your time fixing other people's code and none of it writing your own.
I was asked to do this in my first job. It's very normal practice for releasing a new site unfortunately.
However it's not usually for valuation but to get users on it. However it is a good point that it can influence that.
I'm sceptical about the replace the processor entirely thing.
Another interesting thought is that FPGAs tend to now use memory rather than true programmable transistors.
If you combine memory and processing it can have some very nasty and bizarre implications.
If you manually install libraries this is also going to be problematic. I've often found myself my own package maintainer. It's hard to keep track of everything and some libraries or packages can break each version needing code changes. In niche cases the libraries are being build not simply because they are out of data on the system and newer is needed. Sometimes they need to be patched in a way that wont be accepted upstream which raises the maintenance code for upgrading. VCS helps but it's still a big hassle. I try to make an effort to keep everything up-to-date but occasionally things slip. Luckily for me a lot of it isn't a security concern for most packages as they are internally used.
The situation is actually sometimes worse with automatic package managers that bring in dependent libraries. The issue there is that you have a swarm of new development for things like npm, composer, etc but no quality control. A lot of repositories have issues with this. Things like cpan and Pear I notice has a lot of problems with lots of old unmaintained packages of varying dubious quality. Newer systems have a lot of new content with very little review and varying use or feedback. Lots of quality issues are found there as well as things like ten people developing the same thing. No one appears to even be doing basic checks before letting these packages be listed on central official repositories. Some people in the associated communities even resent the suggestion of any kind of quality control or banding for packages as some kind of foreign non-inclusive notion. It reminds me of when the schools tried to eliminate performance tiers and to make everyone a winner. These attitudes are annoying especially when its merely a grade that doesn't have to eliminate new content from being accessible, merely help people make the right choice about whether to use it or not. Grading isn't a perfect art but it can be done fairly well based on standards checks, web of trust, usage and maintenance statistics, etc.
The problems are on multiple fronts, security, stability, compatibility, bloat, portability and even potentially licensing issues if people have bundled things inappropriately. An example of the absurd is recently I wanted to install a package for being able to execute and intercommunicate with language A from language B. Normally this process by default would compile a library for language B that uses the system includes and library for language A. Instead of doing this the package downloads the maintainers entire binary build of language A which is huge and not even compatible with the system. An option to use a custom compile of language B rather than the system is fair as an extra-option. This package however was simply half baked and wrong. I then encountered multiple other packages that did similar things.
I tend to care and try to do what I can to verify the quality of something including things like checking how recently it has been maintained and so on. However it's really very difficult to do a really thorough job of it.
After years my S5 is still great. Water resistant. I can use a spare battery. Battery life actually is quite good. Has fast charging. Normal phone jack. Fairly common USB charge port. There's always a cable around somewhere or someone has one. Still good CPU, RAM, etc. There's hardly any wear and nothing has broken. I carry it with me all the time. The only annoying thing really is lack of forward facing speakers. There's not really much more I could want.
Better battery life, CPU, screen resolution, etc is good. However it shouldn't come at a cost. That is, it should come through improvements in technology. Not by sacrificing features. I really liked the keyboard on the Touch Pro 2 as well so I miss that.
In general the only annoying thing with Samsung that I haven't been able to avoid easily is how propriety they are with firmware when you want to own a device rather than user contract.
Everything after the S5 has taken away something that I want and many of the additions have been useless. I simply can't fathom the benefit of a curved screen. Technology isn't really progressing fast enough to warrant as many cycles as they want so they are just randomly messing with things or adding some gimmicks each generation. My S5 will probably be replaced 6 to 8 years after purchase date unless it breaks or some shocking new technology comes out. It's already half way towards that duration.
This is Godwin's law. If anything government control over speech is what did immense damage in WW2. That and low educational standards at the time (actually standards in a sense were high but there was still a lot of discovery not widely spread, old beliefs lingering and so on). Common knowledge by the standards of the day was often corrupt simply because of the period in time.
The bar for hate speech should be quite high. Rarely speech can genuinely be dangerous in the same way shouting bomb on public transport can be dangerous. That's because people have no time to question the veracity of that. When they start banning things that are politically inconvenient or conditional with time to address and counter then they ultimately cause harm. When you suppress the accusation, you suppress the defence. You also pretty much verify the accusation since covering it up surely means there is no real defence.
By the standards of many today where people increasingly lower the bar to suit their personal political agendas or point of views, the Koran could be considered hate speech yet pointing this out is also treated by many as hate speech. It's very likely the EU will use this to crack down on dissent against political ideals such as deconstructing nationalism and race, opposing mass immigration and so on.
It was political propaganda that did more to lead to WW2 than "hate speech". Something which can be pretty subjective. The problem is, the leadership had a strong monopoly on propaganda. People were deprived from other sources of information, things like hearsay took hold. I believe at the time a great deal of the German population believed that they were winning the war until the day they lost. This led to a lot of the madness that gripped Germany following the war leading into the next war. Things like that happened because of suppression of information and speech. Not because of a lack of suppression.
When it comes to WW2 and the horrors it entailed, the vague collective memory of that pathologically affects Europe today. Because the memory is so vague and only a few aspects tend to be delved into there's no longer an actual understanding of those events. Europe is more likely to cause a repeat of some of those historic lapses in sanity with its efforts today to stop the very same.
The thing is, zoom works really well compared to scrolling down for navigation and having to change loads of pages, etc.
Mobile interface design is better if it's made to work with zooming rather than having a page with jumbo elements and barely anything on the screen. The information density of modern mobile UI design is aweful.
You can either design it to zoom well and more more sense when zoomed our normally using the normal browser element, or you can zoom components yourself (click to expand, etc).
Hate speech used to not simply mean not liking other people or some such. It meant speech that's legitimately dangerous and traditionally applied to a very niche segment of speech. It was more important when it came to people of actual authority or following which would be likely to be believed, that is, whether the speech can actually be effected is counted in but not alone is necessary, for example, you can't stop people citing facts. If a woman murdered a man for example, you can't suppress that because you think men then might go on a rampage launching violent reprisals against women, in that case you suppress the actual crime, not the cause. The alternative to that becomes victim blaming or something else. For example, it's not a defence in court to say you murdered someone because you read a post on twitter and we simply can't have a society where we lower standards to that level because it would be unlivable, a distopia. Today, hate speech is now doublespeak for offensive speech or really anything people don't like.
A great deal of "hate incidents" are merely incidents and not actually crimes. Of many of the crimes, nearly all are petty. Many have been found to be hoaxes or false reports. The ratio of confirmed crimes to debunked crimes is alarming and there are many remaining that can't be substantiated or where the motive is suspect. Simply seeing a lot of stories in the paper doesn't necessarily mean there's a significant increase either. They're just focusing on that. The fabrications are disturbing but what's also surprising is the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Trump supporters and white people, again particularly males.
Trump said to stop it because that's a more important message than any other. It will probably be latched on to and used to claim that it's some kind of confession. Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary have said nothing about protesters rioting, being violent, committing arson, criminal damage, blocking cars with emergencies, etc.
The ESA probably has some problems with the language barrier between workers and work like this can make things a bit more difficult and definitely increase the chances for failure. I've had a lot of problems with this working with smart people on much simpler software and hardware engineering projects than what they are trying to do. In their case, the slightest thing can cause it to fail catastrophically and permanently. I've had a lot of surreal cases working in such environments. Basic things like for a circle which axis is 0 degrees on and which side of that axis does it increment, which axis's are x, y, z and so on. On paper it's fine, everything is labelled, people often don't even think about it but in general conversation their internal defaults can be anything and the discrepancy might not be detected. Even on paper if you miss the slightest thing such as a label or so on and someone can easily make an assumption instead of clarifying. I've often thought I've understood someone, they've expressed they've understood me and even say things that would lead you to believe this but down the line we find a part was missed or a difference in the use of language means that we had something fundamental completely different in mind. I imagine ESA has some good practices in place to deal with this but it's still not as easy as some others might have it if they speak a more common language.
I think that a lot of these people just want to be neo. The research is probably 50% a useless pursuit but it may indirectly contribute to our understanding of reality which in some ways may fit into certain patterns that may be simulation like.
It's really a thing you know isn't real for most of us but you sometimes indulge in for fun like ghosts. I've had a couple of matrix experiences when not particularly paying attention because of glitches in the brain. Once I walked of a train and someone walked on, then I walked onto another train and someone who looked exactly the same walked off, it was like the same sequence in reverse, a weird kind of dejavu as if both me and the strange walked through some some strange mirror like portal. Another time I walked into a toilet cubical and I could swear I came out of a different one than I went into. If you're lost in thought and not paying attention your brain can do some trippy things although ultimately, it's explainable.
I think Science Fiction is also a bit flooded. I find Science Fiction one of the most easily enjoyable things and it's relatively easier to write Science Fiction in some ways versus Comedy which is genuinely hard regardless of the theme or setting. There's probably a few people fed up with too much Science Fiction.
VM is stage one, there are a lot of ways to do things. If you're really serious about security there are a few things, excluding physical access threats:
Separate offline machine, use sneaker net to communicate. Ensure process is one way! You can also have one way systems using public/private key in a pinch.
How you backup is also actually important. Backup everything from disks to firmware. Incremental backups are a great way to detect changes that viruses might leave around.
Isolate the various machines on your network and definitely secure your router. Allow then deny (whitelisting) is great and can be taken to extremes if you're really security conscious but it can be rather inconvenient for general browsing even if you have a prompt system.
Advert blocking including DNS lists can be productive. It would actually suggest having at least some basic anti-virus, just not one of those modern horror suites. With this you can at least double check if you missed something.
I always loved windows despite all the haters and now I'm buggered as far as personal or work usage goes. What MS has started to do after Windows 7 is too much. I don't want metro (my PC is a desktop, not a phone, improve tiling, virtual desktops, windowing in general fine but metro makes zero sense on a desktop), teletry or web integration. Nor do I want MS doing things like uninstalling software without my consent and turning my machine into a fully managed one like phones with their walled gardens rather than a personal one where I have not things such as root access, choices, etc. My primary OS is no longer a viable option and this is a problem. In fact, it's devestating for me after over a decade using windows desktop and actually having brought licenses. They are turning it into a whole new product rather than simply releasing a new product like any sane company would.
What this means is that individual patches will no longer be available after October 2016, and Windows 7 and Windows 8 users will now only have two choices: stop updating completely and leave your computers vulnerable to security holes, or accept everything single thing Microsoft sends you whether you want it or not.
There is software for windows that you just can't get for Linux and the hardware support for windows has always been great (not to mention the desktop is always fairly consistent and snappy where as Linux suffers from changing things every other day). Anything from opensource can easily be ported and crosscompiled but not the other way around. As a developer, I definitely think that at some point in the future probably a couple of years down the line I will be using and contributing to wine.
This is what will happen in a nutshell. They will include all their telemetry updates.
Perhaps the security only one will be acceptable as a bare minimum but here's the problem...
There will be updates in the normal release that you want as well. Things such as basic updates for compatibility and crash bugs.
I don't know the exact rules for normalisation but when I look at my schemas abd briefly scan the examples on wikipedia, they largely look to be around 4NF to 5NF.and frankly, if I saw someone doing something like the tables not largely around 4NF and 5NF in the before examples I wouldn't peg them as qualified for a database architect or DBA responsibility beyond the absolute basic.I find making a schema that corresponds with good normalisation rules fairly easy. It's actually pretty natural and common sense.
Why do people still screw it up? I would guess a combination of aversion to having more tables and spending too much time with spreadsheets.
The only solution to this for me at this point is to look into any project forking windows. When I say forking, I mean cloning. wine has already made a start of it.
What is memmov? I don't understand how you can truly move memory. You can copy memory and you can change a pointer. You can also zero out the previous memory but that seems silly. You could also swap but again that is silly since it would be called swap.
If it's copy, you just need to do nothing if src == dest, and if dest > src && dest src + len I guess copy it backwards.
Maybe you can also optimise it for alignment with a bit to do head + tail than biggest word size to fill the middle.
I had the same thought. It comes down to rule by computer because after all science is just a process. On the other hand, it's massively biased and manipulated by humans (what to research or test next, etc) and many fields only see results that allow for educated guesses, speculation and so on. Science is limited in how much it can investigate at once and there is a bit of a paradox, the more science measures and shapes the society, the more it risks interfering with its own measurements.
I don't think you can dismiss the place of science and computation in these things, but you cannot remote the human operator entirely. At least not given the current state of affairs.
I have consciousness which is directly observable but this is not actually externally testable. I assume that other humans have it solely based on the reflection of my own self perceived nature. No one even knows where to start or how to describe it or even prove it exists but as something that does exist it is undeniable.
We can't measure it really or handle it properly but it's the source of all morality. Without it everything is as meaningless as numbers and equations written on a piece of paper.
I don't believe it is really possible to truly consider consciousness in algorithms beyond what we impart into them and I doubt we can build a model to cover all possible circumstances. We can't even test if our machines are truly conscious or not even is they mirror our behaviour and appearance entirely.
England has one of the highest population densities in the world and quite a large population as well making it very attractive to mobile and broadcasting businesses. The chances are where ever you invest in the UK you'll get a return on your coverage. It's not as super dense in places though as for example Tokyo. Honestly, I expect that super density is actually worse because of contention, interference, etc. There's a sweet spot and the UK is fairly close to it.
Slashdot Mirror
For a spacecraft moving infinitesimally close to c that is more than enough. It will last for at least a billions years. Just don't decelerate or you're screwed.
I bought that book and Catch 22 recently to better understand Trump's opposition.
All political sides use the same "playbook" to varying degrees.
What is more disturbing to me though is that when I look at what is supposed to be the enlightened, reasoning, rational and liberal side what I see is pretty bad.
We all know about Christian evangelicals, neo-Nazis the far right, ultra-nationalists and so on. There's a hot bed of extremism however on the other side that is really only coming to the fore.
There are people who believe in superior, master morality, it doesn't actually have to come from a supernatural being. There are people who think not being far-right means being far-left. There are people who take positive notions such as the movement against racism and turn them into irrational negative notions. There are people that think not being racist means hating your own race yet loving all overs. There are people who think that not being ultra-nationalistic means hating your nation and it's people. There are people in camps that are traditionally liberal and very for freedom of speech lobbying for not only speech crime but thought crime.
This kind of madness has been going on for a long time but has started to reach new heights. There are plenty of liberals that likely simply didn't vote because of it or even voted for Trump as a part of a backlash.
It's a kind of weird transition period in the west where we have been moving away from one set of extremes but are now crossing the threshold moving into the same opposite extreme. The methods these people use are pretty subversive. To take one simple example, Islamophobia when it was originally created gives a list of what is clearly wrongthink and rightthink. In schools propaganda is being taught with the aim of reinforcing the notion of blasphemy by teaching that simple words, opinions and beliefs are basically as bad as genocide, by that I don't even mean things like if someone believes in genocide, merely if people don't like certain things.
I use it and the main reason is that when I pay £500 for a device upfront and not on financing so that it's not part owned by the phone company I expect it to be personal and not full with crapware. I also like to be able to keep updating Android. Manufacturers will sometimes stop updating their ROMs where as custom ROMs will still keep going. Having a fully rooted and accessible OS is also important. There are a number of problems with custom ROMs though:
* Android needs a lot of work in being upgradable while retaining data. I am not sure if it was meant to be easier than it is but because of things like "the cloud" I think local settings and so on has been allowed to become a mess. There's no standards enforcement to my knowledge. Trying to restore a device between updates is annoying. Theoretically though with the right standards, discipline and organisation it shouldn't be a problem and the process should be seamless. It's not a hard problem in computing. It's just neglected. When you poke under the hood you can see some of the workings of an organised system but in practice things tend to be a pain in the ass.
* A lot of manufacturers don't make this easy. Some devices can be hard to flash. Often manufacturers only let their software work with their ROM or non-custom ROMs. I have had to decompile and recompile to fix this at least once. There's no legitimate reason for the incompatibility. It just checks some ROM property and opts not to work.
* Similarly you can have problems such as low level drivers not being available and potentially losing access to more exotic peripherals on the phone. Similarly developer support even for major devices might not be brilliant.
Fluffler. Stay out of the IT industry. It's horrible these days. You'll spend all your time fixing other people's code and none of it writing your own.
I was asked to do this in my first job. It's very normal practice for releasing a new site unfortunately. However it's not usually for valuation but to get users on it. However it is a good point that it can influence that.
I'm sceptical about the replace the processor entirely thing. Another interesting thought is that FPGAs tend to now use memory rather than true programmable transistors. If you combine memory and processing it can have some very nasty and bizarre implications.
If you manually install libraries this is also going to be problematic. I've often found myself my own package maintainer. It's hard to keep track of everything and some libraries or packages can break each version needing code changes. In niche cases the libraries are being build not simply because they are out of data on the system and newer is needed. Sometimes they need to be patched in a way that wont be accepted upstream which raises the maintenance code for upgrading. VCS helps but it's still a big hassle. I try to make an effort to keep everything up-to-date but occasionally things slip. Luckily for me a lot of it isn't a security concern for most packages as they are internally used.
The situation is actually sometimes worse with automatic package managers that bring in dependent libraries. The issue there is that you have a swarm of new development for things like npm, composer, etc but no quality control. A lot of repositories have issues with this. Things like cpan and Pear I notice has a lot of problems with lots of old unmaintained packages of varying dubious quality. Newer systems have a lot of new content with very little review and varying use or feedback. Lots of quality issues are found there as well as things like ten people developing the same thing. No one appears to even be doing basic checks before letting these packages be listed on central official repositories. Some people in the associated communities even resent the suggestion of any kind of quality control or banding for packages as some kind of foreign non-inclusive notion. It reminds me of when the schools tried to eliminate performance tiers and to make everyone a winner. These attitudes are annoying especially when its merely a grade that doesn't have to eliminate new content from being accessible, merely help people make the right choice about whether to use it or not. Grading isn't a perfect art but it can be done fairly well based on standards checks, web of trust, usage and maintenance statistics, etc.
The problems are on multiple fronts, security, stability, compatibility, bloat, portability and even potentially licensing issues if people have bundled things inappropriately. An example of the absurd is recently I wanted to install a package for being able to execute and intercommunicate with language A from language B. Normally this process by default would compile a library for language B that uses the system includes and library for language A. Instead of doing this the package downloads the maintainers entire binary build of language A which is huge and not even compatible with the system. An option to use a custom compile of language B rather than the system is fair as an extra-option. This package however was simply half baked and wrong. I then encountered multiple other packages that did similar things.
I tend to care and try to do what I can to verify the quality of something including things like checking how recently it has been maintained and so on. However it's really very difficult to do a really thorough job of it.
After years my S5 is still great. Water resistant. I can use a spare battery. Battery life actually is quite good. Has fast charging. Normal phone jack. Fairly common USB charge port. There's always a cable around somewhere or someone has one. Still good CPU, RAM, etc. There's hardly any wear and nothing has broken. I carry it with me all the time. The only annoying thing really is lack of forward facing speakers. There's not really much more I could want.
Better battery life, CPU, screen resolution, etc is good. However it shouldn't come at a cost. That is, it should come through improvements in technology. Not by sacrificing features. I really liked the keyboard on the Touch Pro 2 as well so I miss that.
In general the only annoying thing with Samsung that I haven't been able to avoid easily is how propriety they are with firmware when you want to own a device rather than user contract.
Everything after the S5 has taken away something that I want and many of the additions have been useless. I simply can't fathom the benefit of a curved screen. Technology isn't really progressing fast enough to warrant as many cycles as they want so they are just randomly messing with things or adding some gimmicks each generation. My S5 will probably be replaced 6 to 8 years after purchase date unless it breaks or some shocking new technology comes out. It's already half way towards that duration.
This is Godwin's law. If anything government control over speech is what did immense damage in WW2. That and low educational standards at the time (actually standards in a sense were high but there was still a lot of discovery not widely spread, old beliefs lingering and so on). Common knowledge by the standards of the day was often corrupt simply because of the period in time.
The bar for hate speech should be quite high. Rarely speech can genuinely be dangerous in the same way shouting bomb on public transport can be dangerous. That's because people have no time to question the veracity of that. When they start banning things that are politically inconvenient or conditional with time to address and counter then they ultimately cause harm. When you suppress the accusation, you suppress the defence. You also pretty much verify the accusation since covering it up surely means there is no real defence.
By the standards of many today where people increasingly lower the bar to suit their personal political agendas or point of views, the Koran could be considered hate speech yet pointing this out is also treated by many as hate speech. It's very likely the EU will use this to crack down on dissent against political ideals such as deconstructing nationalism and race, opposing mass immigration and so on.
It was political propaganda that did more to lead to WW2 than "hate speech". Something which can be pretty subjective. The problem is, the leadership had a strong monopoly on propaganda. People were deprived from other sources of information, things like hearsay took hold. I believe at the time a great deal of the German population believed that they were winning the war until the day they lost. This led to a lot of the madness that gripped Germany following the war leading into the next war. Things like that happened because of suppression of information and speech. Not because of a lack of suppression.
When it comes to WW2 and the horrors it entailed, the vague collective memory of that pathologically affects Europe today. Because the memory is so vague and only a few aspects tend to be delved into there's no longer an actual understanding of those events. Europe is more likely to cause a repeat of some of those historic lapses in sanity with its efforts today to stop the very same.
The thing is, zoom works really well compared to scrolling down for navigation and having to change loads of pages, etc. Mobile interface design is better if it's made to work with zooming rather than having a page with jumbo elements and barely anything on the screen. The information density of modern mobile UI design is aweful. You can either design it to zoom well and more more sense when zoomed our normally using the normal browser element, or you can zoom components yourself (click to expand, etc).
Hate speech used to not simply mean not liking other people or some such. It meant speech that's legitimately dangerous and traditionally applied to a very niche segment of speech. It was more important when it came to people of actual authority or following which would be likely to be believed, that is, whether the speech can actually be effected is counted in but not alone is necessary, for example, you can't stop people citing facts. If a woman murdered a man for example, you can't suppress that because you think men then might go on a rampage launching violent reprisals against women, in that case you suppress the actual crime, not the cause. The alternative to that becomes victim blaming or something else. For example, it's not a defence in court to say you murdered someone because you read a post on twitter and we simply can't have a society where we lower standards to that level because it would be unlivable, a distopia. Today, hate speech is now doublespeak for offensive speech or really anything people don't like.
A great deal of "hate incidents" are merely incidents and not actually crimes. Of many of the crimes, nearly all are petty. Many have been found to be hoaxes or false reports. The ratio of confirmed crimes to debunked crimes is alarming and there are many remaining that can't be substantiated or where the motive is suspect. Simply seeing a lot of stories in the paper doesn't necessarily mean there's a significant increase either. They're just focusing on that. The fabrications are disturbing but what's also surprising is the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Trump supporters and white people, again particularly males.
Trump said to stop it because that's a more important message than any other. It will probably be latched on to and used to claim that it's some kind of confession. Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary have said nothing about protesters rioting, being violent, committing arson, criminal damage, blocking cars with emergencies, etc.
I blame Russia. Seems to work for everyone else.
The ESA probably has some problems with the language barrier between workers and work like this can make things a bit more difficult and definitely increase the chances for failure. I've had a lot of problems with this working with smart people on much simpler software and hardware engineering projects than what they are trying to do. In their case, the slightest thing can cause it to fail catastrophically and permanently. I've had a lot of surreal cases working in such environments. Basic things like for a circle which axis is 0 degrees on and which side of that axis does it increment, which axis's are x, y, z and so on. On paper it's fine, everything is labelled, people often don't even think about it but in general conversation their internal defaults can be anything and the discrepancy might not be detected. Even on paper if you miss the slightest thing such as a label or so on and someone can easily make an assumption instead of clarifying. I've often thought I've understood someone, they've expressed they've understood me and even say things that would lead you to believe this but down the line we find a part was missed or a difference in the use of language means that we had something fundamental completely different in mind. I imagine ESA has some good practices in place to deal with this but it's still not as easy as some others might have it if they speak a more common language.
I think that a lot of these people just want to be neo. The research is probably 50% a useless pursuit but it may indirectly contribute to our understanding of reality which in some ways may fit into certain patterns that may be simulation like.
It's really a thing you know isn't real for most of us but you sometimes indulge in for fun like ghosts. I've had a couple of matrix experiences when not particularly paying attention because of glitches in the brain. Once I walked of a train and someone walked on, then I walked onto another train and someone who looked exactly the same walked off, it was like the same sequence in reverse, a weird kind of dejavu as if both me and the strange walked through some some strange mirror like portal. Another time I walked into a toilet cubical and I could swear I came out of a different one than I went into. If you're lost in thought and not paying attention your brain can do some trippy things although ultimately, it's explainable.
I think Science Fiction is also a bit flooded. I find Science Fiction one of the most easily enjoyable things and it's relatively easier to write Science Fiction in some ways versus Comedy which is genuinely hard regardless of the theme or setting. There's probably a few people fed up with too much Science Fiction.
VM is stage one, there are a lot of ways to do things. If you're really serious about security there are a few things, excluding physical access threats: Separate offline machine, use sneaker net to communicate. Ensure process is one way! You can also have one way systems using public/private key in a pinch. How you backup is also actually important. Backup everything from disks to firmware. Incremental backups are a great way to detect changes that viruses might leave around. Isolate the various machines on your network and definitely secure your router. Allow then deny (whitelisting) is great and can be taken to extremes if you're really security conscious but it can be rather inconvenient for general browsing even if you have a prompt system. Advert blocking including DNS lists can be productive. It would actually suggest having at least some basic anti-virus, just not one of those modern horror suites. With this you can at least double check if you missed something.
I always loved windows despite all the haters and now I'm buggered as far as personal or work usage goes. What MS has started to do after Windows 7 is too much. I don't want metro (my PC is a desktop, not a phone, improve tiling, virtual desktops, windowing in general fine but metro makes zero sense on a desktop), teletry or web integration. Nor do I want MS doing things like uninstalling software without my consent and turning my machine into a fully managed one like phones with their walled gardens rather than a personal one where I have not things such as root access, choices, etc. My primary OS is no longer a viable option and this is a problem. In fact, it's devestating for me after over a decade using windows desktop and actually having brought licenses. They are turning it into a whole new product rather than simply releasing a new product like any sane company would.
What this means is that individual patches will no longer be available after October 2016, and Windows 7 and Windows 8 users will now only have two choices: stop updating completely and leave your computers vulnerable to security holes, or accept everything single thing Microsoft sends you whether you want it or not. There is software for windows that you just can't get for Linux and the hardware support for windows has always been great (not to mention the desktop is always fairly consistent and snappy where as Linux suffers from changing things every other day). Anything from opensource can easily be ported and crosscompiled but not the other way around. As a developer, I definitely think that at some point in the future probably a couple of years down the line I will be using and contributing to wine.
This is what will happen in a nutshell. They will include all their telemetry updates. Perhaps the security only one will be acceptable as a bare minimum but here's the problem... There will be updates in the normal release that you want as well. Things such as basic updates for compatibility and crash bugs.
I don't know the exact rules for normalisation but when I look at my schemas abd briefly scan the examples on wikipedia, they largely look to be around 4NF to 5NF.and frankly, if I saw someone doing something like the tables not largely around 4NF and 5NF in the before examples I wouldn't peg them as qualified for a database architect or DBA responsibility beyond the absolute basic.I find making a schema that corresponds with good normalisation rules fairly easy. It's actually pretty natural and common sense.
Why do people still screw it up? I would guess a combination of aversion to having more tables and spending too much time with spreadsheets.
Someone should just submit a driver the exposes all kernel calls to userspace job done.
How do you even test your drivers?
The only solution to this for me at this point is to look into any project forking windows. When I say forking, I mean cloning. wine has already made a start of it.
What is memmov? I don't understand how you can truly move memory. You can copy memory and you can change a pointer. You can also zero out the previous memory but that seems silly. You could also swap but again that is silly since it would be called swap. If it's copy, you just need to do nothing if src == dest, and if dest > src && dest src + len I guess copy it backwards. Maybe you can also optimise it for alignment with a bit to do head + tail than biggest word size to fill the middle.
I had the same thought. It comes down to rule by computer because after all science is just a process. On the other hand, it's massively biased and manipulated by humans (what to research or test next, etc) and many fields only see results that allow for educated guesses, speculation and so on. Science is limited in how much it can investigate at once and there is a bit of a paradox, the more science measures and shapes the society, the more it risks interfering with its own measurements.
I don't think you can dismiss the place of science and computation in these things, but you cannot remote the human operator entirely. At least not given the current state of affairs.
I have consciousness which is directly observable but this is not actually externally testable. I assume that other humans have it solely based on the reflection of my own self perceived nature. No one even knows where to start or how to describe it or even prove it exists but as something that does exist it is undeniable.
We can't measure it really or handle it properly but it's the source of all morality. Without it everything is as meaningless as numbers and equations written on a piece of paper.
I don't believe it is really possible to truly consider consciousness in algorithms beyond what we impart into them and I doubt we can build a model to cover all possible circumstances. We can't even test if our machines are truly conscious or not even is they mirror our behaviour and appearance entirely.
England has one of the highest population densities in the world and quite a large population as well making it very attractive to mobile and broadcasting businesses. The chances are where ever you invest in the UK you'll get a return on your coverage. It's not as super dense in places though as for example Tokyo. Honestly, I expect that super density is actually worse because of contention, interference, etc. There's a sweet spot and the UK is fairly close to it.