I've actually had a couple of those. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa was treated successfully by levofloxcillin (sp?), and I went from insufficient blood pressure to keep my eyes functioning properly to feeling great in 10 days. The Staphylococcus aureus was treated with clindomycin (sp?), which works great, in addition to giving my intestines inspiration to try new and innovative things to do something I had already thought worked satisfactorily. So far, so good.
Security is difficult. If it's at all onerous to use, people will either not buy the phone or not use the security. The idea behind Apple's fingerprint reader was that it was security people would actually use. Moreover, phones can be easily confiscated or stolen, so you're talking about strong security against an attacker with physical possession of the device. That gets real tricky.
Assuming you're talking about iPhones with secure enclave, the wipe-after-ten-tries has to be enabled, and there are increasingly long lockout delays with incorrect entries. Personally, if I have possession of someone's iPhone for a few days, and want it useless, I'll just break the thing.
It's not different in any way. In both cases, we have a human who places a vehicle in a situation where continued driving is dangerous, and therefore the human should bear some responsibility for any accident.
Thing about Venus is that, while it might be reasonable to create a floating habitat high in the atmosphere, it gets really hellish at ground level. Conducting enough operations on it to be worthwhile is going to be really, really expensive. Not to mention that shipping things like gems and construction materials between planets is not going to be economically feasible.
You've only heard of it now? Ever hear of the Scunthorpe problem (observe letters 2-5)? Breast cancer survivor support groups being banned because of too many references to female breasts? There have been unsophisticated content filters with numerous false positives for a long time now.
The issue is that spam is not a technical problem. It's a human problem.
However, since I can't wave a magic wand and make billions of people into good responsible human beings, I look for a technological solution that I can install for myself.
Linux Torvalds designed both Linux and Git according to what HE thinks makes sense and how HE thinks things should work, with his basic philosophy of "this is how I think it should be done and if you disagree, fuck off and use something else".
And this would differ from any other open source/proprietary/free/closed source software in what way?
I've read about history, not just the news. I know what happened in Yugoslavia, in WWII, where a group of enthusiastic individuals with rifles and the like got into fights with poorly trained, poorly led, and poorly equipped regular troops. It wasn't pretty, and it would be worse now, and major power armies nowadays are neither poorly trained, poorly led, or poorly equipped.
Land wars, since the end of WWI, have been conducted by trained groups of people with a variety of weapons, including rifles, machine guns, grenades, and mortars. The German Army was highly successful in WWII, and their low-level tactics were based around machine guns, riflemen being secondary. Forces that were primarily rifle-armed, such as the WWII Chinese Army, were routinely defeated. ISIS has lots of weapons, not just rifles, from the collapse of national armies in the area.
Moreover, in the US it's illegal to go out and buy a modern infantry rifle. A private citizen may only buy automatic weapons that were made before 1987.
The problem is that shareholders can't exercise effective control. Mutual funds, for example, will almost certainly vote their holdings as the board recommends. The result is that the boards are largely independent entities exercising control. If shareholder votes actually mattered for things like compensation, I'd feel a lot happier about it.
Yeah, and a record number of warm days in India in one month means approximately nothing. Years of breaking high-temperature records worldwide is significant.
You're nitpicking, and the essence of the shield laws is that nitpicking doesn't matter when suing individual police officers. It can matter a lot in other legal actions. However, if a police officer does something that the hypothetical reasonable police officer doesn't know is definitely illegal, that police officer is considered to have acted in good faith, and is not individually liable. In that case, the appropriate government body can be sued, but not the individual officer.
It's a combination. The Federal government has certain restricted powers, but the US Constitution places few restrictions on what states can do. However, there are things no government in the US can constitutionally do, and those are generally considered rights. These are something of a short circuit of government power. If my right to speak freely is violated, my lawyer doesn't have to go through the law carefully to make my case, since it really doesn't matter whether or not any applicable law is a reasonable extension of constitutionally granted powers, since I have a Constitutional right to free speech.
As I understand it, the decision was not about whether plaintiff had the right to make the video. The decision was about exactly what legal remedies the plaintiff had. Clearly the plaintiff's rights were violated by law enforcement and the plaintiff was able to sue the city for damages. There's no question of that.
However, should the police who hassled the plaintiff be individually liable? Since it's impossible to know exactly what's legal and what isn't, and some things cannot be determined to be legal before a trial, police get a partial shield: if they operated in reasonably good faith, and they didn't do anything they should know is illegal, they are not individually liable. A "clearly established" right is one the police should individually know and respect, and which they can be held liable for disrespecting.
Constitutional rights don't give you the right to break other laws. In the case you mention, people entered a Federal building in disguise and fiddled with the phones. Those actions are themselves illegal, regardless of what legal or protected activities went on. If I stand on public property, or my own, and am videoing the police while maintaining clearance, I'm not breaking any other laws. Similarly, I have a right to say what I want. I don't have a right to walk into your home and start talking.
Okay, the car gets a couple miles from home, and the weather gets worse. What does the car do? Turning off and letting the occupants die of exposure seems suboptimal to me.
Currently, a UBI would be possible to set up. It wouldn't be a high UBI, but we do spend a lot of money on transfer payments. It's politically impossible in the US currently, but we could do it. Add up what we're currently spending on welfare, Social Security, food stamps, etc., and it's a good chunk of what we'd need. We could adjust the tax structure to pay for it, e.g. raising my taxes more than what's necessary to recover my UBI (I'm better off than most). It would be a big change to the economy, but it isn't impossible.
However, even if a UBI were impossible, that doesn't mean there would be meaningful work for people to do, to the point that everyone who wants can get a real job. That's very definitely in question even in the near future.
Poker is a game of limited choices. When it is your turn, you fold, see, or raise, and the "raise" is the only one of the three that requires an additional decision (how much to raise). Depending on the specific game being played, you might have the option to ask for some number of new cards at some point. Those are the only choices, and what makes poker such a great game is the richness of the strategy with so few rules and actions.
Fighter combat actually does have a limited range of options at any given time. There really aren't that many controls a pilot is going to manipulate, and one piece of sky is very much like another, and what the pilot should be paying attention to is clear. It's the sort of thing that you'd expect an AI to be good at. This also appears to be simulated one-on-one fighting, rather than real combat flying (unless something has changed dramatically over the past few decades, fighters fight in pairs, not solo).
Now, get down on the ground. There's terrain. There's people out there trying not to be seen. There's people making all sorts of plans for groups to execute. Again, unless something has changed dramatically since I last paid attention, tanks by themselves are extremely vulnerable. It's a complicated situation, always with unique elements, and limited visibility. AIs are not going to do well here for a long time, not until we have actual strong AI.
And, the more people who buy SUVs, the more dangerous the small car becomes. Being in an SUV is safer than being in a small car, no matter what everyone else is buying. You're describing the tragedy of the commons.
You said "Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.".
People don't do that with other art forms. People buy current novels who haven't read most of Dickens, Austen, and Verne. People buy current music, despite the cheap and easy availability of great older music. For whatever reason, people seem to value current art.
Slashdot Mirror
I've actually had a couple of those. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa was treated successfully by levofloxcillin (sp?), and I went from insufficient blood pressure to keep my eyes functioning properly to feeling great in 10 days. The Staphylococcus aureus was treated with clindomycin (sp?), which works great, in addition to giving my intestines inspiration to try new and innovative things to do something I had already thought worked satisfactorily. So far, so good.
Modern phones generally have full encryption using strong crypto. Destroying a random 256-bit key is a lot easier than wiping gigs of storage.
Security is difficult. If it's at all onerous to use, people will either not buy the phone or not use the security. The idea behind Apple's fingerprint reader was that it was security people would actually use. Moreover, phones can be easily confiscated or stolen, so you're talking about strong security against an attacker with physical possession of the device. That gets real tricky.
Given full-phone encryption, a simple dump of the memory will reveal garbage that doesn't say anything.
Assuming you're talking about iPhones with secure enclave, the wipe-after-ten-tries has to be enabled, and there are increasingly long lockout delays with incorrect entries. Personally, if I have possession of someone's iPhone for a few days, and want it useless, I'll just break the thing.
I was commenting on the belief that "A big SUV is safer than a smaller car", and for the person who's making the choice of vehicle this is true.
It's not different in any way. In both cases, we have a human who places a vehicle in a situation where continued driving is dangerous, and therefore the human should bear some responsibility for any accident.
Thing about Venus is that, while it might be reasonable to create a floating habitat high in the atmosphere, it gets really hellish at ground level. Conducting enough operations on it to be worthwhile is going to be really, really expensive. Not to mention that shipping things like gems and construction materials between planets is not going to be economically feasible.
Come on, everybody does that. I mean, silentcoder does, so....
You've only heard of it now? Ever hear of the Scunthorpe problem (observe letters 2-5)? Breast cancer survivor support groups being banned because of too many references to female breasts? There have been unsophisticated content filters with numerous false positives for a long time now.
However, since I can't wave a magic wand and make billions of people into good responsible human beings, I look for a technological solution that I can install for myself.
And this would differ from any other open source/proprietary/free/closed source software in what way?
I've read about history, not just the news. I know what happened in Yugoslavia, in WWII, where a group of enthusiastic individuals with rifles and the like got into fights with poorly trained, poorly led, and poorly equipped regular troops. It wasn't pretty, and it would be worse now, and major power armies nowadays are neither poorly trained, poorly led, or poorly equipped.
Land wars, since the end of WWI, have been conducted by trained groups of people with a variety of weapons, including rifles, machine guns, grenades, and mortars. The German Army was highly successful in WWII, and their low-level tactics were based around machine guns, riflemen being secondary. Forces that were primarily rifle-armed, such as the WWII Chinese Army, were routinely defeated. ISIS has lots of weapons, not just rifles, from the collapse of national armies in the area.
Moreover, in the US it's illegal to go out and buy a modern infantry rifle. A private citizen may only buy automatic weapons that were made before 1987.
The 19th-century idea of race could be more varied, with "race" used to refer to nationality.
The problem is that shareholders can't exercise effective control. Mutual funds, for example, will almost certainly vote their holdings as the board recommends. The result is that the boards are largely independent entities exercising control. If shareholder votes actually mattered for things like compensation, I'd feel a lot happier about it.
Yeah, and a record number of warm days in India in one month means approximately nothing. Years of breaking high-temperature records worldwide is significant.
You're nitpicking, and the essence of the shield laws is that nitpicking doesn't matter when suing individual police officers. It can matter a lot in other legal actions. However, if a police officer does something that the hypothetical reasonable police officer doesn't know is definitely illegal, that police officer is considered to have acted in good faith, and is not individually liable. In that case, the appropriate government body can be sued, but not the individual officer.
It's a combination. The Federal government has certain restricted powers, but the US Constitution places few restrictions on what states can do. However, there are things no government in the US can constitutionally do, and those are generally considered rights. These are something of a short circuit of government power. If my right to speak freely is violated, my lawyer doesn't have to go through the law carefully to make my case, since it really doesn't matter whether or not any applicable law is a reasonable extension of constitutionally granted powers, since I have a Constitutional right to free speech.
As I understand it, the decision was not about whether plaintiff had the right to make the video. The decision was about exactly what legal remedies the plaintiff had. Clearly the plaintiff's rights were violated by law enforcement and the plaintiff was able to sue the city for damages. There's no question of that.
However, should the police who hassled the plaintiff be individually liable? Since it's impossible to know exactly what's legal and what isn't, and some things cannot be determined to be legal before a trial, police get a partial shield: if they operated in reasonably good faith, and they didn't do anything they should know is illegal, they are not individually liable. A "clearly established" right is one the police should individually know and respect, and which they can be held liable for disrespecting.
Constitutional rights don't give you the right to break other laws. In the case you mention, people entered a Federal building in disguise and fiddled with the phones. Those actions are themselves illegal, regardless of what legal or protected activities went on. If I stand on public property, or my own, and am videoing the police while maintaining clearance, I'm not breaking any other laws. Similarly, I have a right to say what I want. I don't have a right to walk into your home and start talking.
Okay, the car gets a couple miles from home, and the weather gets worse. What does the car do? Turning off and letting the occupants die of exposure seems suboptimal to me.
Currently, a UBI would be possible to set up. It wouldn't be a high UBI, but we do spend a lot of money on transfer payments. It's politically impossible in the US currently, but we could do it. Add up what we're currently spending on welfare, Social Security, food stamps, etc., and it's a good chunk of what we'd need. We could adjust the tax structure to pay for it, e.g. raising my taxes more than what's necessary to recover my UBI (I'm better off than most). It would be a big change to the economy, but it isn't impossible.
However, even if a UBI were impossible, that doesn't mean there would be meaningful work for people to do, to the point that everyone who wants can get a real job. That's very definitely in question even in the near future.
Poker is a game of limited choices. When it is your turn, you fold, see, or raise, and the "raise" is the only one of the three that requires an additional decision (how much to raise). Depending on the specific game being played, you might have the option to ask for some number of new cards at some point. Those are the only choices, and what makes poker such a great game is the richness of the strategy with so few rules and actions.
Fighter combat actually does have a limited range of options at any given time. There really aren't that many controls a pilot is going to manipulate, and one piece of sky is very much like another, and what the pilot should be paying attention to is clear. It's the sort of thing that you'd expect an AI to be good at. This also appears to be simulated one-on-one fighting, rather than real combat flying (unless something has changed dramatically over the past few decades, fighters fight in pairs, not solo).
Now, get down on the ground. There's terrain. There's people out there trying not to be seen. There's people making all sorts of plans for groups to execute. Again, unless something has changed dramatically since I last paid attention, tanks by themselves are extremely vulnerable. It's a complicated situation, always with unique elements, and limited visibility. AIs are not going to do well here for a long time, not until we have actual strong AI.
And, the more people who buy SUVs, the more dangerous the small car becomes. Being in an SUV is safer than being in a small car, no matter what everyone else is buying. You're describing the tragedy of the commons.
You said "Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.".
People don't do that with other art forms. People buy current novels who haven't read most of Dickens, Austen, and Verne. People buy current music, despite the cheap and easy availability of great older music. For whatever reason, people seem to value current art.