Wait until somebody catches on to modding a large Styrofoam model into a UAV. Fly it nice and high and it might look like a bird on radar if it shows up at all. Fly a bunch of them like a flock of birds, maybe even paint them to look vaguely like something indigenous to the area just in case... then let them drop on their GPS target.
Military bases putting up walls of lead are going to be VERY unpopular with the surround area where said lead walls will eventually drop.
Funny, because I found the first episode to be the only good one... in fact, with a very small amount of work I think it could have been worthy of theatrical release. Unfortunately, after that I found the episodes dragged a lot and didn't feel very 'sci-fi' OR 'PKD', and felt perhaps they would have been better either more heavily adapted or simply not made at all.
I watched the first five, watched the sixth but skipped a lot, and will not seek out the next batch unless they get some major acclaim.
We had a problem (maybe still do???) with card cloners being installed over gas station pumps, with the criminals picking up card data and PINs wirelessly. I'm not sure how the tech worked to clone the cards, but an interesting problem.
I think the carjackings and home invasions died down when the criminals learned how to circumvent the computer lockouts. It takes a bit more than crossing a couple of wires now, but they can still steal your car without you.
>why go through the hassle of having to spy on someone's PIN when you can simply forge a signature?
I think the point is that the PIN replaces the signature and there's no option anymore. Of course, you can still order stuff online with just a few numbers memorized off a card. I imagine that still happens quite a bit.
How's that going, by the way? When car keys were chipped, we saw the rise of home invasions and car jackings.
I'd expect with all credit cards chipped, you're going to get an increase in stalk-and-mugs, where the thief follows you until they can see you enter your PIN, THEN they mug you for your cards.
And that's just what I thought up in the last 10 seconds - actual criminals are often a lot more crafty and probably have several more nasty options I haven't considered.
>Well, consider that some trans activists (who are not really helping actual trans people's situation at all) say that hetero males not wanting to have sex with trans women are homophobic/hateful/bad people, etc.
Some? It's the only opinion I've come across so far. Guess I'm transphobic then, because I just believe they're people who shouldn't be subject to discrimination or abuse.
I even buy (unless and until a better medical explanation is presented) that they may have brains that are cross-sex due to developmental or genetic abnormalities. I'm never going to accept that they are the same as their identified sex, though... because reality is that they aren't. I like Caucasian women. I like redheads, I like women of a similar cultural background and of a similar age to my own. All these things are OK, but if I prefer natural-born women who grew up female, suddenly I'm evil?
I get it, it sucks to be in an extreme minority and be socially isolated. That doesn't mean you can make me desire an intimate bond with you.
>It doesn't seem to have harmed other trans candidates who managed to get elected against all odds.
Fine. Now tell me if they're doing as good a job as you would have expected from other candidates who had similar platforms. In fact, tell me if they appeared to be capable of that PRIOR to getting elected. Getting elected is one thing; getting elected because you are in an in-vogue identified victim group is another. It's a mistake no matter what the cause.
>The conservative victim narrative is failing
Well, I think Trump is enough of a horror show that they're becoming fringe again. I don't think that means it's time to push an unqualified single-cause-figurehead candidate just because maybe you'll get them elected. Especially one of extremely questionable qualifications.
Find someone who appears qualified to do the job they're campaigning to get AND is electable AND supports your causes. Because as voters, we have a duty to ourselves to put our best representatives into office, not merely the ones who are big in the current news cycle.
> the people who said they would save you from it are just feathering their own nests.
I haven't seen a lot of that. In fact, I haven't seen any. But maybe that's because the news is full of the horror show 24/7.
If this catches at all... expect to be told if you don't support Manning you're transphobic. Which, I'd bet, would actually represent a significant impediment to voter support, but would only be one of dozens of reasons to vote for someone else, and most of those other reasons would actually be politically relevant.
Manning is a really good choice if you want more reactionary Trump-style politicians in office.
>What is it about Bitcoin that makes people throw logic completely out the window?
Greed, willful stupidity, and pretty much the same mental processes that lead to people forming and being loyal to cults.
> Did they react with insults and call you stupid if you tried to point out that it's a bubble?
You don't argue with a Bitcoin nut to save the Bitcoin nut. You argue with a Bitcoin nut to save the next susceptible person from being dragged into the mess.
> I knew lots of people who were in that bubble, and none of them are rich now
People did get rich with Beanie Babies. A very, very few. Plus the manufacturer. You just don't know any of the rich people. And you won't with Bitcoin, either. Most of the people who will profit significantly were already rich before getting involved. There are just enough success stories to inspire hundreds of thousands to imagine they will be the next one, without thinking too hard about the odds.
I would object to complete exclusion of computers: computer tallying of paper-and-pencil ballots greatly speeds up the initial counts. So long as the paper ballots exist and can be counted should a problem be expected, leaving out the computers is simply an exercise in delay and increasing the average cost of human involvement in the process.
Unless there is something wrong with the current interface, updating for the sake of it is something that keeps marketing types employed but doesn't achieve much else that's positive.
Essentially, you're throwing away your users' familiarity with your interface and annoying them. They don't want to have to re-learn how to use your site... they want to engage the minimum possible number of brain cells required to participate.
However, marketing folks are GOOD at marketing, and one of the things they can sell people on is the need for marketing people, and they do that by first convincing you to listen to marketing people. When they form an unholy union with sales and convince people the changes can increase revenue... look out, change is coming.
Because it's not the users who matter, it's the customers.
The problem is that while you can use mapping data to break districts in somewhat logical ways, we also tend to want to divide voting by 'neighborhoods' when possible. This is both a problem and a solution, since neighborhoods are pretty much by definition clusters of similar people who probably vote similarly.
Nobody wants to see their vote ignored because they're a small neighborhood adjoining a larger but politically different one, and nobody wants to see someone else's vote given more effective weight because the line was bumped to keep their neighborhood distinct.
And this is not pedantry at all. For most of human history, we've considered ourselves divinely special and separate from nature, and that attitude causes all sorts of problems.
WE ARE JUST ANIMALS. Animals with the most intelligent brains on the planet, but animals nonetheless.
I'm pretty sure most medical researchers understand that and simply use the term as a convenience, but they really ought not to.
> GPS has been shown to exaggerate travel distance by as much as 20% on average.
Bullshit. GPS will frequently report ridiculous velocities as an inaccurate fix can jump from one side to the other of its approximate location. The further you go (and the longer it takes you), the more accurate the average becomes.
Not only that, but generally the GPS string contains information on the fix quality so you can allow for what uncertainty exists.
If your GPS isn't accurate to within 4m on average, you're not under open sky, you're being spoofed, or there is something wrong with your receiver.
>relying on cell tower and gyro/accelerometer data?!
Cell tower fixes can have accuracy measured in kilometers so absolutely, a cell tower fix is not a location at all, it's a region. However, the accuracy of the device accelerometer will be measurable, and you should certainly have different patterns for sitting, walking, running, and moving in a vehicle. You should also see differences for inclines, stairs, and flat surfaces.
So long as the data is properly analyzed and interpreted by an expert, and is used as corroborative evidence and not primary evidence, I see no insurmountable issue with it being used in a courtroom.
I run my computers until they drive me to insanity before replacing them. A 10 year old computer still being used isn't unheard of in my house.
As long as it plays whatever games I have and can surf the Internet, I'm good. My most recent upgrades were last year... and that was just a video card on my workstation so I could improve the appearance of GTA V. I still have a laptop from 2007 that I've only JUST given up on because of issues with 32bit processors. FFS, I'm still using a BlackBerry Playbook as a tablet.
Y'all are lucky I'm not chiselling this post into a stone tablet instead of using a networked computer.
I find the question of exactly how WE identify a unique human face to be interesting. And given we're not certain about that, replicating it with an algorithm becomes an interesting challenge.
How do you tell the difference between an orangutan face and that of an ugly, old, hairy fat guy? As far as we're concerned, "you just do", which is a real bitch of a rule to program.
In my home town, we had 'Consumers Distributing'. You'd leaf through the catalogue (pre-Internet, remember!) and write down the SKUs... then they'd magically come rolling in on a conveyor belt to the cashier.
They had far too many products to have a reasonably-sized display floor for them, so they just didn't show anything.
If I were re-creating that business model today, I'd have shoppers pick up a wireless scanner (or let them use their smart phone) and scan barcodes on a display floor (if you have no display, there's no point in a bricks & mortar presence). When they were done, I'd have a robot picker grab their products from the warehouse and deliver them to the cashier. In fact, I'd allow payment via their smart phones and have the robot deliver to a carport to be loaded directly into their vehicles.
One or two humans to oversee the warehouse, one or two humans to oversee the customer-facing operations, and the rest automated.
100% the fault is with the person who broke trust.
There is NOTHING wrong with someone sharing the most explicit sexual photos of themselves with whoever they want to share them with. There's plenty wrong with passing on photos you have received without permission to do so.
1) IQ tests are extremely culturally biased. There may be average intelligence differences you could correlate with skin colour, but none we can currently measure, and certainly none significant enough to use to prejudge individual ability.
2) Koko is a fraud that has been debunked several times. Koko is amazing, but nowhere near the level of amazing that the involved researchers proclaim.
Humans and gorillas are remarkably similar unless you're blessed with a brain that has a highly evolved 'us and them' image recognition capability.
In fact, we're all in the same family - Hominidae. Out of billions of years of evolution on this planet, our ancestors only split from those of gorillas a mere 8-10 million years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait until somebody catches on to modding a large Styrofoam model into a UAV. Fly it nice and high and it might look like a bird on radar if it shows up at all. Fly a bunch of them like a flock of birds, maybe even paint them to look vaguely like something indigenous to the area just in case... then let them drop on their GPS target.
Military bases putting up walls of lead are going to be VERY unpopular with the surround area where said lead walls will eventually drop.
Funny, because I found the first episode to be the only good one... in fact, with a very small amount of work I think it could have been worthy of theatrical release. Unfortunately, after that I found the episodes dragged a lot and didn't feel very 'sci-fi' OR 'PKD', and felt perhaps they would have been better either more heavily adapted or simply not made at all.
I watched the first five, watched the sixth but skipped a lot, and will not seek out the next batch unless they get some major acclaim.
>Fraud declined, mugging did not change a bit.
We had a problem (maybe still do???) with card cloners being installed over gas station pumps, with the criminals picking up card data and PINs wirelessly. I'm not sure how the tech worked to clone the cards, but an interesting problem.
I think the carjackings and home invasions died down when the criminals learned how to circumvent the computer lockouts. It takes a bit more than crossing a couple of wires now, but they can still steal your car without you.
>why go through the hassle of having to spy on someone's PIN when you can simply forge a signature?
I think the point is that the PIN replaces the signature and there's no option anymore. Of course, you can still order stuff online with just a few numbers memorized off a card. I imagine that still happens quite a bit.
How's that going, by the way? When car keys were chipped, we saw the rise of home invasions and car jackings.
I'd expect with all credit cards chipped, you're going to get an increase in stalk-and-mugs, where the thief follows you until they can see you enter your PIN, THEN they mug you for your cards.
And that's just what I thought up in the last 10 seconds - actual criminals are often a lot more crafty and probably have several more nasty options I haven't considered.
>Well, consider that some trans activists (who are not really helping actual trans people's situation at all) say that hetero males not wanting to have sex with trans women are homophobic/hateful/bad people, etc.
Some? It's the only opinion I've come across so far. Guess I'm transphobic then, because I just believe they're people who shouldn't be subject to discrimination or abuse.
I even buy (unless and until a better medical explanation is presented) that they may have brains that are cross-sex due to developmental or genetic abnormalities. I'm never going to accept that they are the same as their identified sex, though... because reality is that they aren't. I like Caucasian women. I like redheads, I like women of a similar cultural background and of a similar age to my own. All these things are OK, but if I prefer natural-born women who grew up female, suddenly I'm evil?
I get it, it sucks to be in an extreme minority and be socially isolated. That doesn't mean you can make me desire an intimate bond with you.
>It doesn't seem to have harmed other trans candidates who managed to get elected against all odds.
Fine. Now tell me if they're doing as good a job as you would have expected from other candidates who had similar platforms. In fact, tell me if they appeared to be capable of that PRIOR to getting elected. Getting elected is one thing; getting elected because you are in an in-vogue identified victim group is another. It's a mistake no matter what the cause.
>The conservative victim narrative is failing
Well, I think Trump is enough of a horror show that they're becoming fringe again. I don't think that means it's time to push an unqualified single-cause-figurehead candidate just because maybe you'll get them elected. Especially one of extremely questionable qualifications.
Find someone who appears qualified to do the job they're campaigning to get AND is electable AND supports your causes. Because as voters, we have a duty to ourselves to put our best representatives into office, not merely the ones who are big in the current news cycle.
> the people who said they would save you from it are just feathering their own nests.
I haven't seen a lot of that. In fact, I haven't seen any. But maybe that's because the news is full of the horror show 24/7.
If this catches at all... expect to be told if you don't support Manning you're transphobic. Which, I'd bet, would actually represent a significant impediment to voter support, but would only be one of dozens of reasons to vote for someone else, and most of those other reasons would actually be politically relevant.
Manning is a really good choice if you want more reactionary Trump-style politicians in office.
>What is it about Bitcoin that makes people throw logic completely out the window?
Greed, willful stupidity, and pretty much the same mental processes that lead to people forming and being loyal to cults.
> Did they react with insults and call you stupid if you tried to point out that it's a bubble?
You don't argue with a Bitcoin nut to save the Bitcoin nut. You argue with a Bitcoin nut to save the next susceptible person from being dragged into the mess.
> I knew lots of people who were in that bubble, and none of them are rich now
People did get rich with Beanie Babies. A very, very few. Plus the manufacturer. You just don't know any of the rich people. And you won't with Bitcoin, either. Most of the people who will profit significantly were already rich before getting involved. There are just enough success stories to inspire hundreds of thousands to imagine they will be the next one, without thinking too hard about the odds.
I would object to complete exclusion of computers: computer tallying of paper-and-pencil ballots greatly speeds up the initial counts. So long as the paper ballots exist and can be counted should a problem be expected, leaving out the computers is simply an exercise in delay and increasing the average cost of human involvement in the process.
Unless there is something wrong with the current interface, updating for the sake of it is something that keeps marketing types employed but doesn't achieve much else that's positive.
Essentially, you're throwing away your users' familiarity with your interface and annoying them. They don't want to have to re-learn how to use your site... they want to engage the minimum possible number of brain cells required to participate.
However, marketing folks are GOOD at marketing, and one of the things they can sell people on is the need for marketing people, and they do that by first convincing you to listen to marketing people. When they form an unholy union with sales and convince people the changes can increase revenue... look out, change is coming.
Because it's not the users who matter, it's the customers.
The problem is that while you can use mapping data to break districts in somewhat logical ways, we also tend to want to divide voting by 'neighborhoods' when possible. This is both a problem and a solution, since neighborhoods are pretty much by definition clusters of similar people who probably vote similarly.
Nobody wants to see their vote ignored because they're a small neighborhood adjoining a larger but politically different one, and nobody wants to see someone else's vote given more effective weight because the line was bumped to keep their neighborhood distinct.
Try parking on grass outside a fairground. Or going through construction. Or navigating through a school pickup/drop off zone.
Fully autonomous vehicles will absolutely NOT be ready by 2019 except in extremely controlled, specialized cases.
>people are animals - capiche?
And this is not pedantry at all. For most of human history, we've considered ourselves divinely special and separate from nature, and that attitude causes all sorts of problems.
WE ARE JUST ANIMALS. Animals with the most intelligent brains on the planet, but animals nonetheless.
I'm pretty sure most medical researchers understand that and simply use the term as a convenience, but they really ought not to.
>Trying to pull a Tu quoque...
No, the hypocrisy is real, and you're selectively interpreting my posts...for what? To look clever? To me you're just looking thick.
> GPS has been shown to exaggerate travel distance by as much as 20% on average.
Bullshit. GPS will frequently report ridiculous velocities as an inaccurate fix can jump from one side to the other of its approximate location. The further you go (and the longer it takes you), the more accurate the average becomes.
Not only that, but generally the GPS string contains information on the fix quality so you can allow for what uncertainty exists.
If your GPS isn't accurate to within 4m on average, you're not under open sky, you're being spoofed, or there is something wrong with your receiver.
>relying on cell tower and gyro/accelerometer data?!
Cell tower fixes can have accuracy measured in kilometers so absolutely, a cell tower fix is not a location at all, it's a region. However, the accuracy of the device accelerometer will be measurable, and you should certainly have different patterns for sitting, walking, running, and moving in a vehicle. You should also see differences for inclines, stairs, and flat surfaces.
So long as the data is properly analyzed and interpreted by an expert, and is used as corroborative evidence and not primary evidence, I see no insurmountable issue with it being used in a courtroom.
I run my computers until they drive me to insanity before replacing them. A 10 year old computer still being used isn't unheard of in my house.
As long as it plays whatever games I have and can surf the Internet, I'm good. My most recent upgrades were last year... and that was just a video card on my workstation so I could improve the appearance of GTA V. I still have a laptop from 2007 that I've only JUST given up on because of issues with 32bit processors. FFS, I'm still using a BlackBerry Playbook as a tablet.
Y'all are lucky I'm not chiselling this post into a stone tablet instead of using a networked computer.
I am aware of the difference between what is 'right' and what is practical.
Your response, however is telling. Why just your daughters? Why isn't it just as bad sons are sending dick pics?
That attitude has to change, and saying "That's just the way it is" is not the way to do it.
I find the question of exactly how WE identify a unique human face to be interesting. And given we're not certain about that, replicating it with an algorithm becomes an interesting challenge.
How do you tell the difference between an orangutan face and that of an ugly, old, hairy fat guy? As far as we're concerned, "you just do", which is a real bitch of a rule to program.
In my home town, we had 'Consumers Distributing'. You'd leaf through the catalogue (pre-Internet, remember!) and write down the SKUs... then they'd magically come rolling in on a conveyor belt to the cashier.
They had far too many products to have a reasonably-sized display floor for them, so they just didn't show anything.
If I were re-creating that business model today, I'd have shoppers pick up a wireless scanner (or let them use their smart phone) and scan barcodes on a display floor (if you have no display, there's no point in a bricks & mortar presence). When they were done, I'd have a robot picker grab their products from the warehouse and deliver them to the cashier. In fact, I'd allow payment via their smart phones and have the robot deliver to a carport to be loaded directly into their vehicles.
One or two humans to oversee the warehouse, one or two humans to oversee the customer-facing operations, and the rest automated.
>That's an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.
It's not extraordinary at all, and can be checked with a 2-second Google search.
Do you know what a 'Shirley card' is?
100% the fault is with the person who broke trust.
There is NOTHING wrong with someone sharing the most explicit sexual photos of themselves with whoever they want to share them with. There's plenty wrong with passing on photos you have received without permission to do so.
1) IQ tests are extremely culturally biased. There may be average intelligence differences you could correlate with skin colour, but none we can currently measure, and certainly none significant enough to use to prejudge individual ability.
2) Koko is a fraud that has been debunked several times. Koko is amazing, but nowhere near the level of amazing that the involved researchers proclaim.
3) Reality isn't nice, but you're racist.
> Lightning Network
Which works by ripping out the important parts of Bitcoin, thus making Bitcoin even more pointless as an alternative to other methods.
Yes, when it comes to words used in relation to blacks getting people upset in the USA... American racism issues.
Google, American. 'Porch monkey', American racial term. This story is all about American race relations.
So fuck you and your stupid, "Everyone else is doing it" ignorant noise.
Your certainty is based in ignorance.
Humans and gorillas are remarkably similar unless you're blessed with a brain that has a highly evolved 'us and them' image recognition capability.
In fact, we're all in the same family - Hominidae. Out of billions of years of evolution on this planet, our ancestors only split from those of gorillas a mere 8-10 million years ago.