Let's convert carbon dioxide to methane,that's sure to help... Excessive growth of algae (influenced by global warming and fertilizers washed down to the sea from farmlands) is a part of the problem, not the solution.
The problem with algae is that while, true, they convert CO2 to oxygen, they do so, by growing - building their own mass. There's only so much of ocean surface where they can grow by absorbing light. The excess algae not receiving enough light die and rot. And they produce methane by rotting.
I'm pretty sure as greenhouse effect gas, methane is quite a bit stronger than carbon dioxide...
"throwing rocks across the border". Due to modern communication devices you don't have to be present at location of where you commit a crime. And laws of place of crime apply.
For something less morally ambiguous than filesharing, imagine a North Korean hacker manages to break into american nuclear power plant network and makes the reactor blow up. Should he be judged according to North Korean law, where he was at the time of the hack, or according to American law, where he committed mass homicide?
This is true when concerning local purchases, the labels need to sell music under local laws of where they sell it. This is not true when you download the music from American file-sharers. The sharer violated US license, and you participate in violation of the same license by downloading the music from them. And by redistributing it, you continue violating the same license.
Of course if the sharer is, say, Spanish, and their law says they are legal to share the music, American labels can kiss your ass. You're legal to obtain that music from them, and redistribute it further.
I've seen a pro at work with AutoCAD. While us, students, would click awkwardly through the menus finding a command buried three levels deep, it was at his fingertips. He'd create our hour's work within less than five minutes, and primarily thanks to never digging in menus. One hand on the mouse to point things, directions, intersections, grid points etc, the other telling what to do with that point - using the keyboard.
Maybe CLI should not be required. But CLI should always be available. I can understand a newbie getting scared of big black empty screen. But the newbie can overcome the fear, learn and use that skillfully. On the other hand, I will never overcome anguish and frustration of repeatedly clicking through the same "Add User" wizard of BackOffice (Small Business Edition) mandated for schools, as I was trying to add four classes of students, each requiring manually entering the same data over and over, roughly 3 minutes per user. Done with cli+adduser command or config file+text editor this would take up to 10 seconds per user. And after a hour of searching for options to automate the process, I arrived at a page where I learned "Batch user addition is not available in Small Business Edition. You need Enterprise edition for this option to work." But the GUI was so much more intuitive!
But I must give to them that they try to look Unlike Windows really hard. Breaking ages old GUI behaviors and leaving the users bewildered and frustrated just for the reason of "because we're not Windows".
You do not get to dictate, but you may get to negotiate them. Unless the enemy goes full savage and starts mass-murdering your civilian population, to force you out of negotiations and into unconditional surrender.
Your definition of math is very limited. Descriptive Geometry is math too.
Path finding systems may use imprecise weight function when making decisions - calculating weights is a major burden.
Using cameras involves image analysis. In essence, you're working with what is a bunch of noise, and you analyze it for meaningful data, by averaging over a whole bunch of unreliable samples. If you can do it 15 times faster at cost of introducing 5% more noise in the input stage, you're a happy man.
In essence, if input data is burdened by noise of any kind - and only "pure" data like typed or read from disk isn't, any kind of real world data like sensor readouts, images or audio contains noise, the algorithm must be resistant to said noise, and a little more of it coming from math mistakes can't break it. Only after the algorithm reduces say 1MB of raw pixels into 400 bytes of vectorized obstacles you may want to be more precise.... and even then small skews won't break it completely.
Also, what about genetic algorithms, where "mistakes" are introduced into the data artificially? They are very good at some classes of problems, and unreliable calculations at certain points would probably be advantageous to the final outcome.
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of fellow slashdotters posted in a comment. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my fellow slashdotter want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
It was pretending to be a strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of.
Well. we can still send a half a thousand robotic rovers to Mars for a year much cheaper than one man for a week, with no return ticket.
The problem is even 50 years ago there were things that no robot could do and you needed a man on place, to do them. With all the air, food, water, radiation shielding, waste processing and all this stuff robots don't need. Just because robots were too primitive. And 50 years ago we had the cold war and space race with weekly budgets exceeding yearly budget of nowadays.
Nowadays there is no work that can be done by a human, that can't be done better by a robot costing less than full life support system for the human.
I say: send a bunch of robots. Have them build a good self-sustainable base that will withstand decades of use. Send humans on one-way trip. Develop a return vessel while they work on Mars. Send it to bring them back when its ready.
Actually, quite a few shuttles exploded or crashed on the first few takeoffs. Of course they were unmanned prototypes/dummies so no casualties. Only after the design was proven safe to fly the actual flights began.
The article gives a fairly precise FCC answer to the question ow "when": There are two possibilities:
1) When the court orders so. The decision is then at the sole discretion of the court. 2) In situation of immediate, overwhelming danger, which the shutdown would prevent.
Note 2: - Mere conjecture of possible harm is insufficient - the interruption must be very short in duration, only as long as is necessary to preserve the status quo - The agency must immediately seek judicial review of its decision - Under the review the agency must: -- affirmatively provide explanations and evidence to justify the prior restraint. -- show that there were no other alternatives, -- show that the shutdown was deployed with sufficient precision to ensure that it did not deny mobile access to other areas.
So, in this case, that was clearly illegal, failing: - no situation of immediate overwhelming danger. It was known well ahead of time, and while there were some risks, no overwhelming danger existed. - the disruption would not prevent that kind of danger anyway. - the agency didn't seek judicial review. - they neglected alternatives of simply providing more security - they shut down a whole lot of neighboring areas.
What about pointing them sideways, backwards in relation to your orbital movement direction? The probes don't fly straight away from the Sun, that would waste enormous amounts of fuel due to actively fighting the gravity. Instead, they move in an increasingly wide orbit, by increasing orbital speed they make the orbit longer.
The remainder is kids in Cambodia and Mexico seeking out places to spam and sending messages manually for $0.01 per 100 spams. Which is not automated traffic.
"Citation" is the polish TV debate between representatives of the government and of Internet culture organizations, the earlier of two I know of (I don't think there were any more), not the famous, later one where one of the guys came in sandal shoes, and a girl was knitting a sweater... (a circus of disrespect in reply for disrespect the government has shown the participants by announcing the monday debate late friday afternoon, and sending out invitation emails with horrible grammar errors in it).
I'm not completely sure if it was EFF, or GNU or who exactly - one of the likes. Anyway, they presented the premise and demanded explaination, especially in light that the new promises (at that time) were exactly the same as the old ones.
All you need to do is to smuggle it under the radar. ACTA has been in the works for years now. Only the recent SOPA protests have drawn eyes of crowds to it, and only that encouraged politicians to scrutinize the act for conflicts with existing bills of rights.
Polish division of EFF got the government's declaration a YEAR ago that no step will be done towards accepting ACTA without getting it through a precise scrutinity. Then they outright broke the promise.
Unfortunately, if you take the Games market, Zynga is a giant. Taunt the quality of their games all you want, the company profits are well on par with Ubisoft and EA.
In my understanding, a testimony is also what you give at the police when they question you, the point when you're advised to demand a lawyer and refuse to say anything.
Though I understand court order to give access to something.
You are equalling a physical proof with a testimony. So the physical proof is a tape with my voice recorded, but I use my right to remain silent and they don't have my voice print to compare. They can't make me say anything that would incriminate me, because anything, and literally ANYTHING I'd say would be used against me.
Still, I guess the prudent thing would be to give them a WRONG password. And claim with all confidence that this is the right password and they fucked up, messed the backups or something.
We're still talking about a lower level court. So, court demands from me a testimony which will lead directly to proofs of my guilt - password is not an item, like a key, it's an information, like a word.
What they COULD do is to order me to unlock the drive. Just put it in a computer and tell me to give them access to the contents. This is not me saying anything, it's me doing something. I'm not telling the password, I'm opening the lock.
Of course I could put a self-destruct password too. Of course they could make a backup...
Slashdot Mirror
Let's convert carbon dioxide to methane,that's sure to help...
Excessive growth of algae (influenced by global warming and fertilizers washed down to the sea from farmlands) is a part of the problem, not the solution.
The problem with algae is that while, true, they convert CO2 to oxygen, they do so, by growing - building their own mass.
There's only so much of ocean surface where they can grow by absorbing light. The excess algae not receiving enough light die and rot. And they produce methane by rotting.
I'm pretty sure as greenhouse effect gas, methane is quite a bit stronger than carbon dioxide...
"throwing rocks across the border". Due to modern communication devices you don't have to be present at location of where you commit a crime. And laws of place of crime apply.
For something less morally ambiguous than filesharing, imagine a North Korean hacker manages to break into american nuclear power plant network and makes the reactor blow up. Should he be judged according to North Korean law, where he was at the time of the hack, or according to American law, where he committed mass homicide?
This is true when concerning local purchases, the labels need to sell music under local laws of where they sell it.
This is not true when you download the music from American file-sharers. The sharer violated US license, and you participate in violation of the same license by downloading the music from them. And by redistributing it, you continue violating the same license.
Of course if the sharer is, say, Spanish, and their law says they are legal to share the music, American labels can kiss your ass. You're legal to obtain that music from them, and redistribute it further.
I've seen a pro at work with AutoCAD.
While us, students, would click awkwardly through the menus finding a command buried three levels deep, it was at his fingertips. He'd create our hour's work within less than five minutes, and primarily thanks to never digging in menus. One hand on the mouse to point things, directions, intersections, grid points etc, the other telling what to do with that point - using the keyboard.
He didn't suggest taking out CLI.
RTFS.
Keep it as an option or you can take it out all together.
Maybe CLI should not be required. But CLI should always be available.
I can understand a newbie getting scared of big black empty screen. But the newbie can overcome the fear, learn and use that skillfully.
On the other hand, I will never overcome anguish and frustration of repeatedly clicking through the same "Add User" wizard of BackOffice (Small Business Edition) mandated for schools, as I was trying to add four classes of students, each requiring manually entering the same data over and over, roughly 3 minutes per user. Done with cli+adduser command or config file+text editor this would take up to 10 seconds per user. And after a hour of searching for options to automate the process, I arrived at a page where I learned "Batch user addition is not available in Small Business Edition. You need Enterprise edition for this option to work."
But the GUI was so much more intuitive!
But I must give to them that they try to look Unlike Windows really hard. Breaking ages old GUI behaviors and leaving the users bewildered and frustrated just for the reason of "because we're not Windows".
Yeah, yeah, I'm getting your point: The Americans didn't do worse than the Japaneese. They just matched them up in terms of cruelty and savagery.
Good that you didn't start death camps for them Japs. After all, Hitler was doing this, so it would fully justify your side to do the same thing.
You do not get to dictate, but you may get to negotiate them. Unless the enemy goes full savage and starts mass-murdering your civilian population, to force you out of negotiations and into unconditional surrender.
Your definition of math is very limited. Descriptive Geometry is math too.
Path finding systems may use imprecise weight function when making decisions - calculating weights is a major burden.
Using cameras involves image analysis. In essence, you're working with what is a bunch of noise, and you analyze it for meaningful data, by averaging over a whole bunch of unreliable samples. If you can do it 15 times faster at cost of introducing 5% more noise in the input stage, you're a happy man.
In essence, if input data is burdened by noise of any kind - and only "pure" data like typed or read from disk isn't, any kind of real world data like sensor readouts, images or audio contains noise, the algorithm must be resistant to said noise, and a little more of it coming from math mistakes can't break it. Only after the algorithm reduces say 1MB of raw pixels into 400 bytes of vectorized obstacles you may want to be more precise.... and even then small skews won't break it completely.
Also, what about genetic algorithms, where "mistakes" are introduced into the data artificially? They are very good at some classes of problems, and unreliable calculations at certain points would probably be advantageous to the final outcome.
A friend has a smartphone that can either run Skype audio calls or use WPA. The CPU is not strong enough to run both. So, his accesspoint uses WEP.
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of fellow slashdotters posted in a comment. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my fellow slashdotter want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
It was pretending to be a strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of.
Well. we can still send a half a thousand robotic rovers to Mars for a year much cheaper than one man for a week, with no return ticket.
The problem is even 50 years ago there were things that no robot could do and you needed a man on place, to do them. With all the air, food, water, radiation shielding, waste processing and all this stuff robots don't need. Just because robots were too primitive. And 50 years ago we had the cold war and space race with weekly budgets exceeding yearly budget of nowadays.
Nowadays there is no work that can be done by a human, that can't be done better by a robot costing less than full life support system for the human.
I say: send a bunch of robots. Have them build a good self-sustainable base that will withstand decades of use. Send humans on one-way trip. Develop a return vessel while they work on Mars. Send it to bring them back when its ready.
Actually, quite a few shuttles exploded or crashed on the first few takeoffs. Of course they were unmanned prototypes/dummies so no casualties. Only after the design was proven safe to fly the actual flights began.
The article gives a fairly precise FCC answer to the question ow "when":
There are two possibilities:
1) When the court orders so. The decision is then at the sole discretion of the court.
2) In situation of immediate, overwhelming danger, which the shutdown would prevent.
Note 2:
- Mere conjecture of possible harm is insufficient
- the interruption must be very short in duration, only as long as is necessary to preserve the status quo
- The agency must immediately seek judicial review of its decision
- Under the review the agency must:
-- affirmatively provide explanations and evidence to justify the prior restraint.
-- show that there were no other alternatives,
-- show that the shutdown was deployed with sufficient precision to ensure that it did not deny mobile access to other areas.
So, in this case, that was clearly illegal, failing:
- no situation of immediate overwhelming danger. It was known well ahead of time, and while there were some risks, no overwhelming danger existed.
- the disruption would not prevent that kind of danger anyway.
- the agency didn't seek judicial review.
- they neglected alternatives of simply providing more security
- they shut down a whole lot of neighboring areas.
What about pointing them sideways, backwards in relation to your orbital movement direction? The probes don't fly straight away from the Sun, that would waste enormous amounts of fuel due to actively fighting the gravity. Instead, they move in an increasingly wide orbit, by increasing orbital speed they make the orbit longer.
The remainder is kids in Cambodia and Mexico seeking out places to spam and sending messages manually for $0.01 per 100 spams.
Which is not automated traffic.
Maybe it was in tone of "The burgoise will not oppress the working class. The elites will not stop the march towards freedom of the working man."?
"Citation" is the polish TV debate between representatives of the government and of Internet culture organizations, the earlier of two I know of (I don't think there were any more), not the famous, later one where one of the guys came in sandal shoes, and a girl was knitting a sweater... (a circus of disrespect in reply for disrespect the government has shown the participants by announcing the monday debate late friday afternoon, and sending out invitation emails with horrible grammar errors in it).
I'm not completely sure if it was EFF, or GNU or who exactly - one of the likes. Anyway, they presented the premise and demanded explaination, especially in light that the new promises (at that time) were exactly the same as the old ones.
All you need to do is to smuggle it under the radar. ACTA has been in the works for years now. Only the recent SOPA protests have drawn eyes of crowds to it, and only that encouraged politicians to scrutinize the act for conflicts with existing bills of rights.
Polish division of EFF got the government's declaration a YEAR ago that no step will be done towards accepting ACTA without getting it through a precise scrutinity. Then they outright broke the promise.
Unfortunately, if you take the Games market, Zynga is a giant. Taunt the quality of their games all you want, the company profits are well on par with Ubisoft and EA.
In my understanding, a testimony is also what you give at the police when they question you, the point when you're advised to demand a lawyer and refuse to say anything.
Though I understand court order to give access to something.
You are equalling a physical proof with a testimony. So the physical proof is a tape with my voice recorded, but I use my right to remain silent and they don't have my voice print to compare. They can't make me say anything that would incriminate me, because anything, and literally ANYTHING I'd say would be used against me.
Still, I guess the prudent thing would be to give them a WRONG password. And claim with all confidence that this is the right password and they fucked up, messed the backups or something.
We're still talking about a lower level court. So, court demands from me a testimony which will lead directly to proofs of my guilt - password is not an item, like a key, it's an information, like a word.
What they COULD do is to order me to unlock the drive. Just put it in a computer and tell me to give them access to the contents. This is not me saying anything, it's me doing something. I'm not telling the password, I'm opening the lock.
Of course I could put a self-destruct password too.
Of course they could make a backup...
Can court order something unconstitutional or against the law?