A P/E ratio of 60 isn't outlandish if there's reason to expect massive growth (which I don't expect out of Google/Alphabet, but that's another issue). I'm keeping an investment in a company with a 60 P/E because I'm confident of lots of growth. Apple's got a quite reasonable P/E, but I have no confidence in Apple's future, so it's less tempting.
My stock market app shows Facebook at around a 30 P/E, not 250, which is quite reasonable if the company is expected to grow significantly.
It has? The email servers themselves were legal (they wouldn't be now). The mishandling of classified information was inadvertent (I've never seen any sort of argument that it was deliberate, except for that one document she ordered sent by nonsecure channels, and if that was a State Department document she's the classification authority), and I couldn't find any case of a person prosecuted for such. (There was one person who agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, but that was dropped.) I'm not real happy about how she handled them, and I'm never going to take her advice about IT, but I don't see where she would have done anything worthy of prosecution.
Active sensors eliminate one possible source of shadows (between the light and the person), they can't necessarily see something if there's an obstacle in the way.
I also wear a safety vest while pedestrianing at night. I had a near-collision a few years ago, and it made me decide I'm never going to be unnoticed again.
I wouldn't be surprised if it did read the signs. One thing about self-driving cars is that there's lots of things that are designed and standardized for the sake of human drivers, so they can generally benefit from those.
If a ball comes into the street from behind a parked car, I assume there's a kid following, and react accordingly (probably slamming the brakes). AIs can do the same. If a person just comes out from behind a large vehicle at the exact wrong time, without any warning, I'm going to hit that person.
Clinton has been investigated inside and out. Her opponents haven't come up with anything warranting perp-walking her to the jail, and it's not for a lack of trying or lack of sympathy for their cause. Clinton really hasn't done anything calling for criminal prosecution. The investigations on Trump are ongoing.
I've got a gold razor blade around somewhere. I found it in a snowdrift next to the street once. There was white stuff caked on it, so having it would legally have meant I was in possession of white stuff, likely cocaine. I carefully washed the white stuff off, and now it's a gold or gold-plated razor blade, perfectly legal.
However, suppose I have a blockchain with a child pornography image embedded. It's illegal to possess here. However, I can't remove the image, so I can't keep and use a legal copy of the blockchain.
That's the difference. I have a net connection, so if I got the right (or wrong) link I could access child pornography. I can also not access child pornography. I have a car. I can use it as a criminal getaway vehicle (which would be stupid, since it keeps in touch with the mothership) or I could hit someone or something with it (I know where the button is to disable collision avoidance). I can also use it to drive to work and the grocery store.
There's choices in all but one of these. I can wash the razor blade. I can drive the car legally. I can't remove the CP from the blockchain, and I can't validate transactions without it.
Many laws against child porn are specifically about records of things that actually happened. Last I looked, the law in my state said child porn was imagery from an actual sex act involving someone under 18. In other words, CP production means an actual sexual act happened. If I imagine such a thing, no actual child is involved. (There are jurisdictions with rules that do include imagery that didn't come from an actual sex act, but I really dislike those laws.)
For almost all of the Internet, things can be removed. That's what we have a DMCA takedown procedure for (in the US). Criminal activity doesn't last forever. Unless it's in a blockchain or other immutable form that can't be discarded.
More than that - if there is no CP in a coin, there's no CP there. Nobody has to demonstrate that it's impossible; the authorities have to demonstrate that there is CP there.
First, things that will happen "sooner or later" will not necessarily happen in our lifetimes.
Second, we're not concerned with big numbers in the abstract. We're concerned with specific numbers. A quick look at a not-very-large PNG in my Pictures folder shows a size of 110K, which is 880K bits. Therefore, there are 2^880,000 (about 10^264,000) possible numbers of that size. In all of history, we're not going to generate a googol of numbers of that size (10^100), so the chance of randomly producing that number is less than one in 10^293,900.
Therefore, if a number translates in some halfway reasonable way to an image or video of child pornography, that's what it is. If there are two extant numbers that can be combined to make child pornography, that's child pornography with the equivalent of a one-time pad. The chance that the number would come up by chance is incredibly much less than the chance that the President, every Cabinet member, every Senator, and every Representative will die tomorrow.
Also, the legal system is unlikely to allow you to keep CP on your system, no matter what the resolution of the case. So, considering the most lenient and reasonable of responses from the system, you still can't have a copy of the blockchain.
Thomas Paine presumably looked at what went into his pamphlet. People who publish advertising always had standards of what they'd publish. Now, suppose my blog was still up, and somebody posted a comment that was inherently illegal, such as CP. I'd remove it. I'd be surprised to find that this sort of thing didn't happen a lot. There's solutions.
The blockchain is something inherently public that anyone can put any data in, and which can't be removed. That's new.
No, your claims of prescriptive linguistics are bovine exhaust. There is nothing invalid about the meaning OSI applies to the phrase "Open Source". It's common for people to take words or short phrases and add additional meanings.
The way words work is that they have meanings, which can change over time, and phrases can mean something other than what their constituent words mean. A vacuum cleaner does not clean a vacuum. It doesn't create a vacuum, and won't even work in a vacuum. It really has nothing to do with vacuums, but the phrase has a widely understood meaning.
Words and phrases have meanings if a reasonable number of people understand the words or phrases as having that meaning. Lots of people understand "Open Source" as "software with an OSI-approved license", so that's a valid meaning.
Assuming the sensors are perfectly adequate, it's still possible to hit someone. People can be hidden by obstacles until they appear and it's too late to avoid a crash. If the sensors are inadequate, it's not like driving with closed eyes (the analogy to that would be turning the sensors off). You could compare that to driving while tired or angry or distracted by something outside the car or any other condition in which it would be considered an unfortunate accident. A driver hitting a pedestrian does not normally face criminal charges.
Slashdot Mirror
Ashcroft lost a Senate race to a dead man before becoming Attorney General for Bush. That's got to sting.
A P/E ratio of 60 isn't outlandish if there's reason to expect massive growth (which I don't expect out of Google/Alphabet, but that's another issue). I'm keeping an investment in a company with a 60 P/E because I'm confident of lots of growth. Apple's got a quite reasonable P/E, but I have no confidence in Apple's future, so it's less tempting.
My stock market app shows Facebook at around a 30 P/E, not 250, which is quite reasonable if the company is expected to grow significantly.
It has? The email servers themselves were legal (they wouldn't be now). The mishandling of classified information was inadvertent (I've never seen any sort of argument that it was deliberate, except for that one document she ordered sent by nonsecure channels, and if that was a State Department document she's the classification authority), and I couldn't find any case of a person prosecuted for such. (There was one person who agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, but that was dropped.) I'm not real happy about how she handled them, and I'm never going to take her advice about IT, but I don't see where she would have done anything worthy of prosecution.
We can define "safe" conservatively here. If the car can determine that swerving would be safe, it can swerve.
Self-driving cars, when widely deployed, will save lives. (Otherwise, they won't be widely deployed.)
Active sensors eliminate one possible source of shadows (between the light and the person), they can't necessarily see something if there's an obstacle in the way.
My father-in-law was hit by a deer once while driving to work.
You must be new here.
I fail to see the moral quandary in that particular dilemma, at least with the current President.
The AI doesn't have to be programmed with any fancy criteria. It can brake as hard as possible. It can swerve if safe, if not not it can just brake.
I also wear a safety vest while pedestrianing at night. I had a near-collision a few years ago, and it made me decide I'm never going to be unnoticed again.
I wouldn't be surprised if it did read the signs. One thing about self-driving cars is that there's lots of things that are designed and standardized for the sake of human drivers, so they can generally benefit from those.
If a ball comes into the street from behind a parked car, I assume there's a kid following, and react accordingly (probably slamming the brakes). AIs can do the same. If a person just comes out from behind a large vehicle at the exact wrong time, without any warning, I'm going to hit that person.
Clinton has been investigated inside and out. Her opponents haven't come up with anything warranting perp-walking her to the jail, and it's not for a lack of trying or lack of sympathy for their cause. Clinton really hasn't done anything calling for criminal prosecution. The investigations on Trump are ongoing.
They haven't done anything I've seen to appease the opposition party. Why start with this? My bet is on the closed session with hookers and blow.
I've got a gold razor blade around somewhere. I found it in a snowdrift next to the street once. There was white stuff caked on it, so having it would legally have meant I was in possession of white stuff, likely cocaine. I carefully washed the white stuff off, and now it's a gold or gold-plated razor blade, perfectly legal.
However, suppose I have a blockchain with a child pornography image embedded. It's illegal to possess here. However, I can't remove the image, so I can't keep and use a legal copy of the blockchain.
That's the difference. I have a net connection, so if I got the right (or wrong) link I could access child pornography. I can also not access child pornography. I have a car. I can use it as a criminal getaway vehicle (which would be stupid, since it keeps in touch with the mothership) or I could hit someone or something with it (I know where the button is to disable collision avoidance). I can also use it to drive to work and the grocery store.
There's choices in all but one of these. I can wash the razor blade. I can drive the car legally. I can't remove the CP from the blockchain, and I can't validate transactions without it.
Many laws against child porn are specifically about records of things that actually happened. Last I looked, the law in my state said child porn was imagery from an actual sex act involving someone under 18. In other words, CP production means an actual sexual act happened. If I imagine such a thing, no actual child is involved. (There are jurisdictions with rules that do include imagery that didn't come from an actual sex act, but I really dislike those laws.)
For almost all of the Internet, things can be removed. That's what we have a DMCA takedown procedure for (in the US). Criminal activity doesn't last forever. Unless it's in a blockchain or other immutable form that can't be discarded.
More than that - if there is no CP in a coin, there's no CP there. Nobody has to demonstrate that it's impossible; the authorities have to demonstrate that there is CP there.
First, things that will happen "sooner or later" will not necessarily happen in our lifetimes.
Second, we're not concerned with big numbers in the abstract. We're concerned with specific numbers. A quick look at a not-very-large PNG in my Pictures folder shows a size of 110K, which is 880K bits. Therefore, there are 2^880,000 (about 10^264,000) possible numbers of that size. In all of history, we're not going to generate a googol of numbers of that size (10^100), so the chance of randomly producing that number is less than one in 10^293,900.
Therefore, if a number translates in some halfway reasonable way to an image or video of child pornography, that's what it is. If there are two extant numbers that can be combined to make child pornography, that's child pornography with the equivalent of a one-time pad. The chance that the number would come up by chance is incredibly much less than the chance that the President, every Cabinet member, every Senator, and every Representative will die tomorrow.
Also, the legal system is unlikely to allow you to keep CP on your system, no matter what the resolution of the case. So, considering the most lenient and reasonable of responses from the system, you still can't have a copy of the blockchain.
Thomas Paine presumably looked at what went into his pamphlet. People who publish advertising always had standards of what they'd publish. Now, suppose my blog was still up, and somebody posted a comment that was inherently illegal, such as CP. I'd remove it. I'd be surprised to find that this sort of thing didn't happen a lot. There's solutions.
The blockchain is something inherently public that anyone can put any data in, and which can't be removed. That's new.
No, your claims of prescriptive linguistics are bovine exhaust. There is nothing invalid about the meaning OSI applies to the phrase "Open Source". It's common for people to take words or short phrases and add additional meanings.
The way words work is that they have meanings, which can change over time, and phrases can mean something other than what their constituent words mean. A vacuum cleaner does not clean a vacuum. It doesn't create a vacuum, and won't even work in a vacuum. It really has nothing to do with vacuums, but the phrase has a widely understood meaning.
Words and phrases have meanings if a reasonable number of people understand the words or phrases as having that meaning. Lots of people understand "Open Source" as "software with an OSI-approved license", so that's a valid meaning.
Nobody's asking people to do that. Copyleft licenses say that, if you publish, you need to share your changes. You can't just release the binaries.
Assuming the sensors are perfectly adequate, it's still possible to hit someone. People can be hidden by obstacles until they appear and it's too late to avoid a crash. If the sensors are inadequate, it's not like driving with closed eyes (the analogy to that would be turning the sensors off). You could compare that to driving while tired or angry or distracted by something outside the car or any other condition in which it would be considered an unfortunate accident. A driver hitting a pedestrian does not normally face criminal charges.
You're not allowed to use a "take a casual comment nobody actually made as a legally binding commitment" argument.