It could not have been the aircraft carrier Yorktown because the first Yorktown carrier was sunk at Midway in 1942, and the next WWII Yorktown carrier has been a museum ship in Charleston SC since the 1970's.
And it was not any of the battleships due to their being decommissioned and mothballed around 1991, and after that any travel was pretty much by tugboat. If anyone has a link to an article saying otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Further research answers some questions. I read the Wisconsin bill; another post. It shows that it isn't cash payments, but rather tax credits. So it isn't like Wisconsin loses $3 billion if the factory closes. Also, it should be mentioned that nowhere in the bill is Foxconn mentioned. Anyone can come to Wisconsin, build a factory, and get the deal. There are certain circumstances in which there would be cash payments, but it appears that only happens if Foxconn exceeds its expectations and promises. That's good. Also, it is in the bill that if the manufacturer does not keep promises, it has to pay the avoided taxes.
The point I was trying to make is that market forces/technology changes killed Solyndra long before its payback period, so I wonder what happens if the Foxconn project is killed by market forces. In Solyndra's case the factory was supported by loan guarantees so we taxpayers were on the hook, and it cost us about $500 billion. We taxpayers got some of that back but we are still in the hole as far as Solyndra. (As other's have pointed out, the overall DOE program was a good success, almost all other projects went quite well) Wisconsin's deal does not contain loan guarantees as far as I can tell from the bill, so taxpayers are not on the hook. However, the state and local authorities will be paying for roads, schools, water and sewer upgrades as they would for anyone, and they'll no doubt do that with municipal bonds. That's also in the bill that the state will assist local municipalities if a project goes wrong.
But one thing I'm mentioned was can such a plant be easily repurposed if the market for whatever they decide to make goes away? So as you pointed out, in the case of Solyndra that plant is now doing something fairly different for Tesla, then the answer appears to be that this type of facility can be repurposed fairly easily. I've seen over time many factories fail that had to be torn down before the land could be used. You can't easily repurpose a chemical plant into one to make refrigerators.
As for what Foxconn will be making, LCD screen for consumer electronics, how long will LCD panels rule the market is the question. We're looking at a decades-long tax district, so the long term outlook for the technology should be a consideration. If the problems with OLED TV's are solved, will the market for LCD TV's remain strong? Would the Foxconn factory be able to convert to making QLEDS if those take off, or would they just walk away as so often happens?
Look at it another way. Consider plasma screen TV's. Suppose the year is 2000, and someone wanted to build a plant to make plasma screen displays for TV's, and the project wanted a tax district and had a long payback time. It would look like a great idea then, but would that plant still be profitable in the USA today, or closed? I'd say profitable for a while and now closed, but it likely would have paid for itself. Suppose we asked that question in 2005, and in 2010 for a plasma screen factory. Similarly, I suppose Wisconsin should be considering if the factory will be building the technological equivalent of a plasma screen 5-10 years out, and if the investment would be worth it in that time frame.
Tax credits Under the substitute amendment, WEDC may certify certain businesses to claim income and franchise tax credits if a business begins operations in the electronics and information technology manufacturing zone. WEDC may certify such a business for additional income and franchise tax credits, subject to certain limitations, if the business makes a significant capital expenditure in the zone. If the amount of the credit exceeds the taxpayer's tax liability, the taxpayer receives a refund equal to the excess amount. The total amount of all tax credits WEDC may certify under the substitute amendment is $2,850,000,000. WEDC may seek repayment of tax credits under circumstances specified in the substitute amendment, and WEDC must revoke a certification to claim tax credits if a certified business does any of the following:
And then a list of things that basically says if Foxconn fails, they have to pay back the money.
The money is tax credits, not payments. However, it appears to me that in this bill (and I do not entirely understand the legalese) that there can be payments made to manufacturers in the tax district in the circumstance that the calculated tax credits exceed the actual tax owed. Due to the way the tax credits are calculated (number of actual people hired and salary, promises kept, etc), this only happens if Foxconn exceeds their promises and the factory is successful. This would be a good thing, if I read it right.
I'm hoping that someone with more expertise would check this out by reading the bill.
this has a very long payback, and my first question is, why would we think that a factory making a single electronic component would have any use ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now? What is the plan, or could it even be repurposed if the technology changes, I.e. OLED screens vs LED screens.
Are we looking at another Solyndra? Does this project have the smell of wrongness that followed the Pfizer at New London project from the beginning?
Personally, I'm excited to see what this brings for treatment of depression and social anxiety. And maybe in twenty years, we'll come around and be willing to explore micro-dosing for medical purposes. (There is anecdotal evidence that it reduces emotional PMS to zero for a lot of women, and I'm curious what it does for those with reduced attention spans.)
Well it's worse than I thought. I mentioned this thread to a friend in real life and found out that to a lot of people "Make America Great Again" is now code words for "Make America White Again", and saying that juxtaposed with beating Koreans in a video game only serves to hammer it home. Well that's news to me, but nonetheless it's wrong to have said it. I apologize for saying that.
1980: http://www.iagreetosee.com/por... I remember this one because I voted for the guy in 1980. GHW Bush also used that phrase when campaigning.
1991: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This is Clinton so it's not even a Republican phrase. It's just something people have been saying.
As for the rest of it, I'm not being coy. I wrote the post, and I know that I was not making a Trump reference when I wrote it. After 16 presidential elections, Trump is just another one to me. You can attempt to tell me what I meant when I wrote the post, but you'll still be wrong.
My post is about winning at StarCraft. The Slashdot article is about StarCraft. They say they want the AI to learn to beat the best players, and that would be the Koreans. And if the Google owned UK company DeepMind wins, then like any sports competition, it looks good for the winners. That would be the USA. And I suppose Great Britain should get some cred as well.
Using Trump's slogan makes it about Trump. So the Koreans are good at Starcraft? So what? Why bring Trump's slogan into it? Since when was America ever great at Starcraft? Since when did anyone but Koreans care about Starcraft? That game came out in the 90s for fuck's sake.
Still not about Trump. Variations of "Make America Great Again" has been a staple of almost every politician running against an incumbent in the USA for quite some time. I've been hearing it for decades, and I can't imagine why anyone would be unaware of this slogan's long history. I would not be surprised if they used it in the Adams-Jefferson election.
As for the questions about StarCraft, the article is about an AI that plays StarCraft. If the AI is going to be acknowledged to be any good, it will have to beat the Korean teams. They are presently and historically the world champions. It's like Deep Blue and Deep Fritz playing chess The world champions happen to be usually Russian. No one would care if the Deeps won against the Coffeeville Mississippi school team. So it's a big deal when the computers beat the Russians. Likewise, if the AI beats the Koreans in StarCraft it will be a big deal in advancing AI technology.
lol, no. The post isn't about Trump. I suppose the reason it seems incoherent to you is that you probably don't play StarCraft. It should have occurred to me that the article would be as likely to attract people interested in AI as much as StarCraft. Mea Culpa, I should have provided some background.
Most StarCraft players know that the multi-million dollar professional StarCraft competitions are totally dominated by the Koreans, specifically Koreans from South Korea.
The whole concepts of pensions and retirements is artificial, modern and soon to be not relevant.
Both pensions and retirement came about in the last century during a period when the lifespan was much shorter.
Most of what you said was right, but pensions are far from a new idea. Pensions have long been standard practice for soldiers, especially those serving during wartime. The Roman Empire had pensions for retired soldiers. The practice began during the first century BC. The practice has been found throughout history. Worker guilds, retired clergy, service to royalty, and so on offered pensions. In the American south, some of the slave-holding had state laws requiring pensions for freed slaves. The purpose was to prevent owners from freeing slaves too old to work profitably and thus becoming a burden on public services. This did not happen after the Civil War ended.
The Supreme Court's decisions have been available online for at least 5 years, probably more. Granted, they don't have an app for access: you use a browser, and they're in PDF format so they resemble the final printed copy. But they're there. As is the court's agenda. As are records of oral arguments. So claiming that the Supremes are tech-averse is being kind of blind.
Many of the federal appeals courts also publish decisions (in PDF) on their web site rather than (or in addtion to) through PACER. As do a few District courts and some state courts.
The new twist is making the other case records available online. That's probably important for the lawyers and the true geeks, but less so for those who just want to know the final outcome. Frankly, I don't mind if those are behind the PACER paywall - it's all a business expense for the lawyers anyway.
And remember, the actual permanent record *is* still on paper, and is bound into volumes for use in law libraries. THAT will never change. What's online (and has been for, really, 10 years or more) is good enough for the rest of us.
Thanks for making a relevant post. I've been using the SCOTUS web site for years to read their decisions because the news so very often misquotes the court's decisions. The funny thing is, I'm having a hard time finding past decisions on the new web site.
Next up, Millennials will "discover" an amazing hack to reading the news -- buying a printed newspaper from a newspaper stand! More at 11!
"There's no batteries to run out!", they exclaimed.
Oh, no no no, not printed newspapers.
Those things can catch fire. Just try it. Spread one out on the floor or sofa and just light one corner of the thing. See what happens. You'll want to be able to put it out, so be sure to have a full bladder before you begin.
When I was a kid, all we had to play with was fire. And we were glad to have it.
They were called Fluoroscopes, did use X-rays and were dangerous.
Um, yes, and? I'm not contradicting any of that, which is common knowledge, but the GP's ignorant claim that they used radium. They were powered by X-ray tubes, not radium.
arth1 is correct. I had my feet x-rayed at a shoe store when I was a kid. The shoe guy seemed to be science geek and opened it up and vaguely explained how the x-ray tube and fluorescent screen worked. So here's your first-hand report from the field. The 1950's were a different time in some ways.
This was already tried. The Articles of Confederation were a failure.
Does anybosy here actually know any US history?
Uh, the Articles of Confederation was not an attempt to break up the Federal Government because there was no Federal Government (or USA) before then. The Articles of Confederation was the beta version, so to speak, and ratified before the war with Great Britain was even over.
Are you thinking of the Confederate States of America? Or their Articles of Secession? That was a different thing.
It appears that United Airlines posted a statement retracting the ban before the Slashdot article was posted.
From United Airlines spokesperson earlier this afternoon: “While TSA is recommending that customers keep their comic books in their carry-on bags, there are no restrictions on packing them in checked luggage,” reads the statement. “We misunderstood TSA’s instructions and regret any inconvenience this may have caused our customers.”
Regarding the OP,periklisv and other respondents, the person mis-using the email address did not open an account using periklisv's name, address or personal information. When creating an account for themselves the person apparently mistakenly put in the wrong email address and no doubt they are doing it in error. Or it is possible that the person was setting up an account on the phone and the phone operator mis-typed the email address. There's no fraud involved here.
It does not become your account due to what is basically a typographical error in the email address. Furthermore, logging onto an account that you KNOW is not your account is a violation of the CFA.
Furthermore, across the world there are many thousands of names that are shared by many people having the same exact name. Having the same name as another person does not make that person's property (or accounts) belong to you. If you did not create the account, then it isn't yours and you cannot logon to that account.
What I don't understand is why the Glassdoor posters must be revealed but the name of the company is a secret. Have we entered into an alternate universe where corporations have a higher level of rights than humans?
Why are you targeting retreating forces? Isn't there something in the Geneva convention about that?
Until the beam diverges to a larger area than the target, the only thing attenuating the power delivered to the target is the atmosphere.
They've tested this on moving boats and UAV's, so I'd assume the answer to "can they target moving objects?" is "yes"
The laser is continuous, it's made from modified 6 welding lasers that all focus on the target.
It's designed to compliment traditional weapons, not replace them. If the conditions are too bad for it to work, they're going use a gun or missile. Which is going to be much worse for the bad guys.
The Geneva protocol does not prohibit attacking retreating forces, quite the opposite. Retreat shows an intention to continue combat from another location.
The Geneva protocol prohibits attacking persons that are hors de combat (wounded, unconscious, shipwreck) It prohibits attacking forces that clearly are attempting to surrender and are not attempting to escape.
I suspect that within 50 years they will have something relatively portable you can put on someone's head and read the words they are about to say with reasonable accuracy.
But in the next hundred years they will not:
1) Have something that is accurate enough for court. 2) Have something that does not have to touch your head. 3) Have anything that works without a substantial "Learning" time on each individual person before being able to work properly
As for (3) well, the interesting thing from the paper is that after they was recorded the patterns from a group of people reading their sample set of sentences they had a naive subject read the sentences. The new person's fMRI scan could be decoded to tell what sentence had just been read, although only about.77 accuracy.
The paper isn't about mind reading, it is about brain mapping complex (yet fundamental) units of thought. They're testing their model of neural representation of the brain function: "We present a predictive computational theory of the neural representations of individual events and states". The fMRI experiment bears out that their model is largely correct. And it appears that different people store things in the same places in the same way. Also, the paper mentions another study in which the mapping seems to be the same even for people who speak different languages.
Slashdot Mirror
And I suppose it's my turn to be the guy that posts the related xkcd :
https://www.xkcd.com/937/
I think y'all are talking about the cruiser Yorktown hat was disabled by a software problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It could not have been the aircraft carrier Yorktown because the first Yorktown carrier was sunk at Midway in 1942, and the next WWII Yorktown carrier has been a museum ship in Charleston SC since the 1970's.
And it was not any of the battleships due to their being decommissioned and mothballed around 1991, and after that any travel was pretty much by tugboat.
If anyone has a link to an article saying otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Further research answers some questions. I read the Wisconsin bill; another post. It shows that it isn't cash payments, but rather tax credits.
So it isn't like Wisconsin loses $3 billion if the factory closes.
Also, it should be mentioned that nowhere in the bill is Foxconn mentioned. Anyone can come to Wisconsin, build a factory, and get the deal.
There are certain circumstances in which there would be cash payments, but it appears that only happens if Foxconn exceeds its expectations and promises. That's good. Also, it is in the bill that if the manufacturer does not keep promises, it has to pay the avoided taxes.
The point I was trying to make is that market forces/technology changes killed Solyndra long before its payback period, so I wonder what happens if the Foxconn project is killed by market forces.
In Solyndra's case the factory was supported by loan guarantees so we taxpayers were on the hook, and it cost us about $500 billion. We taxpayers got some of that back but we are still in the hole as far as Solyndra. (As other's have pointed out, the overall DOE program was a good success, almost all other projects went quite well)
Wisconsin's deal does not contain loan guarantees as far as I can tell from the bill, so taxpayers are not on the hook.
However, the state and local authorities will be paying for roads, schools, water and sewer upgrades as they would for anyone, and they'll no doubt do that with municipal bonds. That's also in the bill that the state will assist local municipalities if a project goes wrong.
But one thing I'm mentioned was can such a plant be easily repurposed if the market for whatever they decide to make goes away?
So as you pointed out, in the case of Solyndra that plant is now doing something fairly different for Tesla, then the answer appears to be that this type of facility can be repurposed fairly easily. I've seen over time many factories fail that had to be torn down before the land could be used. You can't easily repurpose a chemical plant into one to make refrigerators.
As for what Foxconn will be making, LCD screen for consumer electronics, how long will LCD panels rule the market is the question. We're looking at a decades-long tax district, so the long term outlook for the technology should be a consideration.
If the problems with OLED TV's are solved, will the market for LCD TV's remain strong?
Would the Foxconn factory be able to convert to making QLEDS if those take off, or would they just walk away as so often happens?
Look at it another way. Consider plasma screen TV's.
Suppose the year is 2000, and someone wanted to build a plant to make plasma screen displays for TV's, and the project wanted a tax district and had a long payback time. It would look like a great idea then, but would that plant still be profitable in the USA today, or closed? I'd say profitable for a while and now closed, but it likely would have paid for itself.
Suppose we asked that question in 2005, and in 2010 for a plasma screen factory.
Similarly, I suppose Wisconsin should be considering if the factory will be building the technological equivalent of a plasma screen 5-10 years out, and if the investment would be worth it in that time frame.
Here is the bill from Wisconsin's legislature web site.
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/docum...
From the bill:
Tax credits Under the substitute amendment, WEDC may certify certain businesses to claim income and franchise tax credits if a business begins operations in the electronics and information technology manufacturing zone. WEDC may certify such a business for additional income and franchise tax credits, subject to certain limitations, if the business makes a significant capital expenditure in the zone. If the amount of the credit exceeds the taxpayer's tax liability, the taxpayer receives a refund equal to the excess amount. The total amount of all tax credits WEDC may certify under the substitute amendment is $2,850,000,000. WEDC may seek repayment of tax credits under circumstances specified in the substitute amendment, and WEDC must revoke a certification to claim tax credits if a certified business does any of the following:
And then a list of things that basically says if Foxconn fails, they have to pay back the money.
The money is tax credits, not payments.
However, it appears to me that in this bill (and I do not entirely understand the legalese) that there can be payments made to manufacturers in the tax district in the circumstance that the calculated tax credits exceed the actual tax owed. Due to the way the tax credits are calculated (number of actual people hired and salary, promises kept, etc), this only happens if Foxconn exceeds their promises and the factory is successful. This would be a good thing, if I read it right.
I'm hoping that someone with more expertise would check this out by reading the bill.
this has a very long payback, and my first question is, why would we think that a factory making a single electronic component would have any use ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now? What is the plan, or could it even be repurposed if the technology changes, I.e. OLED screens vs LED screens.
Are we looking at another Solyndra?
Does this project have the smell of wrongness that followed the Pfizer at New London project from the beginning?
Plus, these is that psylocybin is considered to be among the safest recreational drugs.
https://www.theguardian.com/so...
https://www.globaldrugsurvey.c...
Disclaimer: I'm aware that the globaldrugsurvey's methodology and conclusions has major, almost stupid problems, but their raw data does suggest that that the mushrooms are fairly safe.
Personally, I'm excited to see what this brings for treatment of depression and social anxiety. And maybe in twenty years, we'll come around and be willing to explore micro-dosing for medical purposes. (There is anecdotal evidence that it reduces emotional PMS to zero for a lot of women, and I'm curious what it does for those with reduced attention spans.)
tl;dr
Well it's worse than I thought.
I mentioned this thread to a friend in real life and found out that to a lot of people "Make America Great Again" is now code words for "Make America White Again", and saying that juxtaposed with beating Koreans in a video game only serves to hammer it home.
Well that's news to me, but nonetheless it's wrong to have said it.
I apologize for saying that.
[citation needed]
1980:
http://www.iagreetosee.com/por...
I remember this one because I voted for the guy in 1980. GHW Bush also used that phrase when campaigning.
1991:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is Clinton so it's not even a Republican phrase. It's just something people have been saying.
As for the rest of it, I'm not being coy. I wrote the post, and I know that I was not making a Trump reference when I wrote it.
After 16 presidential elections, Trump is just another one to me.
You can attempt to tell me what I meant when I wrote the post, but you'll still be wrong.
My post is about winning at StarCraft. The Slashdot article is about StarCraft. They say they want the AI to learn to beat the best players, and that would be the Koreans. And if the Google owned UK company DeepMind wins, then like any sports competition, it looks good for the winners. That would be the USA. And I suppose Great Britain should get some cred as well.
Using Trump's slogan makes it about Trump. So the Koreans are good at Starcraft? So what? Why bring Trump's slogan into it? Since when was America ever great at Starcraft? Since when did anyone but Koreans care about Starcraft? That game came out in the 90s for fuck's sake.
Still not about Trump.
Variations of "Make America Great Again" has been a staple of almost every politician running against an incumbent in the USA for quite some time. I've been hearing it for decades, and I can't imagine why anyone would be unaware of this slogan's long history.
I would not be surprised if they used it in the Adams-Jefferson election.
As for the questions about StarCraft, the article is about an AI that plays StarCraft. If the AI is going to be acknowledged to be any good, it will have to beat the Korean teams. They are presently and historically the world champions.
It's like Deep Blue and Deep Fritz playing chess The world champions happen to be usually Russian. No one would care if the Deeps won against the Coffeeville Mississippi school team. So it's a big deal when the computers beat the Russians.
Likewise, if the AI beats the Koreans in StarCraft it will be a big deal in advancing AI technology.
lol, no. The post isn't about Trump. I suppose the reason it seems incoherent to you is that you probably don't play StarCraft. It should have occurred to me that the article would be as likely to attract people interested in AI as much as StarCraft.
Mea Culpa, I should have provided some background.
Most StarCraft players know that the multi-million dollar professional StarCraft competitions are totally dominated by the Koreans, specifically Koreans from South Korea.
Here's some background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://wcs.starcraft2.com/en-...
The whole concepts of pensions and retirements is artificial, modern and soon to be not relevant.
Both pensions and retirement came about in the last century during a period when the lifespan was much shorter.
Most of what you said was right, but pensions are far from a new idea.
Pensions have long been standard practice for soldiers, especially those serving during wartime.
The Roman Empire had pensions for retired soldiers. The practice began during the first century BC.
The practice has been found throughout history. Worker guilds, retired clergy, service to royalty, and so on offered pensions.
In the American south, some of the slave-holding had state laws requiring pensions for freed slaves. The purpose was to prevent owners from freeing slaves too old to work profitably and thus becoming a burden on public services. This did not happen after the Civil War ended.
Have we found, at long last, a possible way to beat the Koreans at StarCraft?
If so, will this Make America Great Again?
The Supreme Court's decisions have been available online for at least 5 years, probably more. Granted, they don't have an app for access: you use a browser, and they're in PDF format so they resemble the final printed copy. But they're there. As is the court's agenda. As are records of oral arguments. So claiming that the Supremes are tech-averse is being kind of blind.
Many of the federal appeals courts also publish decisions (in PDF) on their web site rather than (or in addtion to) through PACER. As do a few District courts and some state courts.
The new twist is making the other case records available online. That's probably important for the lawyers and the true geeks, but less so for those who just want to know the final outcome. Frankly, I don't mind if those are behind the PACER paywall - it's all a business expense for the lawyers anyway.
And remember, the actual permanent record *is* still on paper, and is bound into volumes for use in law libraries. THAT will never change. What's online (and has been for, really, 10 years or more) is good enough for the rest of us.
Thanks for making a relevant post. I've been using the SCOTUS web site for years to read their decisions because the news so very often misquotes the court's decisions.
The funny thing is, I'm having a hard time finding past decisions on the new web site.
> When I was a kid, all we had to play with was fire. And we were glad to have it.
You had fire? You lucky, lucky bastard. When we were kids, fire was not yet invented.
Yes, there was. But back then we called it "jailbait".
Next up, Millennials will "discover" an amazing hack to reading the news -- buying a printed newspaper from a newspaper stand! More at 11!
"There's no batteries to run out!", they exclaimed.
Oh, no no no, not printed newspapers.
Those things can catch fire.
Just try it. Spread one out on the floor or sofa and just light one corner of the thing. See what happens. You'll want to be able to put it out, so be sure to have a full bladder before you begin.
When I was a kid, all we had to play with was fire. And we were glad to have it.
Not really. He is referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They were called Fluoroscopes, did use X-rays and were dangerous.
Um, yes, and? I'm not contradicting any of that, which is common knowledge, but the GP's ignorant claim that they used radium. They were powered by X-ray tubes, not radium.
arth1 is correct.
I had my feet x-rayed at a shoe store when I was a kid. The shoe guy seemed to be science geek and opened it up and vaguely explained how the x-ray tube and fluorescent screen worked. So here's your first-hand report from the field.
The 1950's were a different time in some ways.
Is this a way to bring back the features of IE6 and ActiveX controls, only now they can install themselves more easily?
Who would not want this?
This was already tried. The Articles of Confederation were a failure.
Does anybosy here actually know any US history?
Uh, the Articles of Confederation was not an attempt to break up the Federal Government because there was no Federal Government (or USA) before then. The Articles of Confederation was the beta version, so to speak, and ratified before the war with Great Britain was even over.
Are you thinking of the Confederate States of America? Or their Articles of Secession? That was a different thing.
It appears that United Airlines posted a statement retracting the ban before the Slashdot article was posted.
From United Airlines spokesperson earlier this afternoon:
“While TSA is recommending that customers keep their comic books in their carry-on bags, there are no restrictions on packing them in checked luggage,” reads the statement. “We misunderstood TSA’s instructions and regret any inconvenience this may have caused our customers.”
At 4:55 PM:
https://consumerist.com/2017/0...
At 5:15 PM:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Regarding the OP,periklisv and other respondents, the person mis-using the email address did not open an account using periklisv's name, address or personal information. When creating an account for themselves the person apparently mistakenly put in the wrong email address and no doubt they are doing it in error.
Or it is possible that the person was setting up an account on the phone and the phone operator mis-typed the email address. There's no fraud involved here.
It does not become your account due to what is basically a typographical error in the email address. Furthermore, logging onto an account that you KNOW is not your account is a violation of the CFA.
Furthermore, across the world there are many thousands of names that are shared by many people having the same exact name. Having the same name as another person does not make that person's property (or accounts) belong to you. If you did not create the account, then it isn't yours and you cannot logon to that account.
What I don't understand is why the Glassdoor posters must be revealed but the name of the company is a secret.
Have we entered into an alternate universe where corporations have a higher level of rights than humans?
Why are you targeting retreating forces? Isn't there something in the Geneva convention about that?
Until the beam diverges to a larger area than the target, the only thing attenuating the power delivered to the target is the atmosphere.
They've tested this on moving boats and UAV's, so I'd assume the answer to "can they target moving objects?" is "yes"
The laser is continuous, it's made from modified 6 welding lasers that all focus on the target.
It's designed to compliment traditional weapons, not replace them. If the conditions are too bad for it to work, they're going use a gun or missile. Which is going to be much worse for the bad guys.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org...
The Geneva protocol does not prohibit attacking retreating forces, quite the opposite.
Retreat shows an intention to continue combat from another location.
The Geneva protocol prohibits attacking persons that are hors de combat (wounded, unconscious, shipwreck)
It prohibits attacking forces that clearly are attempting to surrender and are not attempting to escape.
I look forward to every new day because that's life
That statement alone defines a successful life.
I suspect that within 50 years they will have something relatively portable you can put on someone's head and read the words they are about to say with reasonable accuracy.
But in the next hundred years they will not:
1) Have something that is accurate enough for court.
2) Have something that does not have to touch your head.
3) Have anything that works without a substantial "Learning" time on each individual person before being able to work properly
As for (3) well, the interesting thing from the paper is that after they was recorded the patterns from a group of people reading their sample set of sentences they had a naive subject read the sentences. The new person's fMRI scan could be decoded to tell what sentence had just been read, although only about .77 accuracy.
The paper isn't about mind reading, it is about brain mapping complex (yet fundamental) units of thought. They're testing their model of neural representation of the brain function: "We present a predictive computational theory of the neural representations of individual events and states". The fMRI experiment bears out that their model is largely correct. And it appears that different people store things in the same places in the same way.
Also, the paper mentions another study in which the mapping seems to be the same even for people who speak different languages.