Seriously. There comes a time when a government just effectively openly declares: "I am insane and megalomaniacal. Just ignore me and go full black market libertarian."
Reportedly NSA was able up til the recent past to grab unencrypted data transfers from one data centre in for example. the Google cloud to another data centre. This traffic may since have been encrypted by the pissed off cloud service provider companies.
Patent 5,796,967 looks like a patent on programs which send page templates and executable code to a client machine to display a dynamic user interface with buttons and text and stuff.
Doesn't this kind of mean they're claiming they've patented the dynamic web in general?
New IBM strategy, perhaps though up by "No Shit Sherlock" the top-secret successor to Watson:
"What is: Laying off our innovation staff and relying on wild-ass patent trolling for profit, Alex?"
As I understand it, Google's studies of the topic are showing that having a human driver on hand will generally not help and will probably make the outcome worse. I think I read they found it takes about 1 second for a human driver to take over and be in effective control in the event they decide there is a problem that the computer can't handle. At typical car speeds, that 1 second is way too long. And that's with Google test drivers who have been carefully briefed and assessed.
I think Google's tentative conclusion is that semi-auto (with assumption of driver responsibility and take-over) is bad, full auto is better.
If you just describe in plain English what you did as a fix to each bug, that is not subject to copyright. That's communicating an idea, which is not subject to copyright. Only the particular form of expression (or a straightforward derivative of the form) is subject to copyright.
Over the next several years, by the time self-driving car technology is good enough to be mainstream, and by the time legislation has changed to allow them in general use, electric cars will have sufficient range and price reduction that they will be a viable alternative for most current uses of personal automobiles and taxis/ubers etc.
When electric cars provide a viable alternative, and have lower carbon emissions even if coal generation continues, there is no excuse not to introduce a significant and ramping up price on carbon, for automotive fuels.
This would reduce the tendency for non-electric uses of personal vehicles to increase.
Proceeds from a sufficient carbon price could also be applied to speeding the conversion of the electricity generating system to more clean renewables,
Wait. Don't more than half of Americans think that an invisible sky fairy with a long beard and disapproving frown is running things (when he's not delicately burying fake dinosaur bones with a smirk on his face?)
Or believe in UFOs?
Or think that there is a titanic battle between our protective father sky fairy and an armada of UFOs,
or something along those lines.
"More than half of Americans think X" doesn't tell me anything about the quality or veracity of X. It tells me quite a bit about a particular half of Americans.
telcomms want their customers to pay them directly for each extra thing. Free access to open internet is disruptive "giving it away" according to them. It's freeing their captive market.
Facebook also wants everyone to be on facebook, not the open internet, so that all the ad revenue comes to them.
Free basics - nice strategy to keep the customers within the (pay) walls - if you can get away with it.
and register itself as a non-profit organization in, oh I don't know, the Bahamas, or Liberia, or somewhere other than big-brotherland where it currently lives.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
You mean like this legitimate political criticism?
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I've taken the trouble to collect the following incisive valid criticisms of this candidate from slashdot posts on this topic:
"I was tired of seeing her cunt face on TV" "See ya later you fucking whore." "She missed sucking cocks" "All the work and time on the campaign trail, she missed swallowing down sweet jizz. You slutty bitch, Carly" "Carly is a Dumb Bitch" "But Carly's snatch? No way never not with a 10-foot pole. Dat bitch has probably got all sorts o diseases from all her gangbangs at HP. captcha: tightens" "Can carly's pussy squirt?" "you stupid bitch" "I never liked that bitch" "Maybe she'd make a good whore. Next role, carly?" "...good riddance you dumb whore bitch!!!" "See ya later dumb bitch" "Good riddance you ugly whore." "...soulless bitch Go fuck off now"
But the potty comments by any other name smell as shitty.
Can you put a lid on the mysogonistic crap?
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Those contributing that to the discussion sound like twisted little 14 year old boys trying to get the cred to join their neighborhood "hang out smoking outside the 7-11" gang.
Too stupid to have understood the basics of this science when it was realized 30-odd years ago. Too stupid to have acknowledged the scientific consensus til it (and fires, droughts, cyclones) was hitting them over the head. Too stupid to manage their own government science program, believing there was only one simple question, and it's answered already. Dumb. Dumber. Dumbest. Are these the only choices we can elect?
Why is that exactly? Why is above average intelligence and knowledge with a tinge of reality-bias not a prized attribute when we select our national leadership?
Do we follow some principle of not wanting to elect someone smarter than ourselves because, who knows what they might get up to that would just go right over my head? Instead, we seem to be way more comfortable electing "Joe nice bloke down the pub. Solid handshake on 'im.". What gives?
On the one hand, low-grade unskilled programming is a job that will be automated out of existence soon enough, so promoting this as "jobs for the new economy" strategy is misguided.
On the other hand, introducing things like "logic" and "arithmetic" and "logic + arithmetic" into the thinking of the average American cannot be a bad idea.
In my city, there used to be a sign at the public beach that said something (in red circle with bar through) like "No fires"
Nowadays, the sign says "No fires" "No dogs off leash" "No Vehicles" "No smoking" and about 4 other things I can't remember, probably including "No frisbees"
It would be much more efficient if they just put up a sign which says along the lines of: "Whatever we haven't explicitly permitted you to do is forbidden, obviously!"
If American robot factories are going to be cost-competitive with Chinese manual factories or the upcoming Chinese robot factories, then why not bring back the "robo-facturing" (the new word for "manufacturing") to America.
Just don't expect it to bring job growth with it, as he is trying to sell.
Human-managed hybridization and selective breeding are by nature incremental modifications of living systems that have evolved their current form through billions of years of incremental evolution, tested by natural co-evolution and co-habitation uncountable numbers of times throughout those billions of years. The processes of modification used in hybridization/selective breeding mimic the well-tested change-processes of natural evolution.
In the near future, on the other hand, arbitrary genomes (assembled under computer program supervision from individual nucleobases) will be constructable with genetic engineering / synthetic biology science and technology.
The number of different possible living systems/subsystems/mechanisms thus constructable is literally, not figuratively, exponentially greater than the number that have already been incrementally designed/constructed by evolution or evolution+selective breeding.
Are you really trying to tell me that the risk level from that arbitrary synthetic biology is equivalent to the risk from selective breeding and hybridization? Mathematically and logically, that is not a supportable position.
The risk level of synthetic biology (the unknown, perhaps unpredictable risks component) is a function of the number of possible novel mechanisms/subsystems/systems and the extent to which those novel mechanisms are different from pre-existent, evolution-tested mechanisms/subsystems/systems.
One can say, and tactically, one would say, that most arbitrarily human-designed and engineered synthetic biological mechanisms/subsystems/systems will obviously fail to thrive, but that is a red herring, because with enough cleverness, a proportion of them will thrive, and that proportion, still potentially an enormous variety and sometimes with substantive difference from existing living mechanisms, is what poses the risk.
Is not whether there are currently proven harms in any existing GM Organism.
The real problem is the following: 0. Every GMO case (and ecological context it is introduced into) is unique. 1. Therefore unanticipated issues may be novel with each case. 2. Problems could include direct toxicity or reduction in nutrient value or what have you. 3. Or problems could be ecological, in that the newly introduced artifical variety may outcompete a native organism, and or may change the balance of an ecosystem. 4. AND HERE'S THE KICKER If ever such a thing as 2. or 3. occurs, it is occurring in a self-reproducing organism, which like all organisms, tries to proliferate itself across as much of the environment as it can (that's what life does, in general). You may not be able to put your genie back in the bottle. You may have achieved a widespread, unstoppable change or harm to an ecosystem (of difficult to guess in advance scale and severity).
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , granted, a science-fiction novel, but Sci-Fi authors are often scientist-class thinkers with a decent amount of foresight and imagination. The kind of people you need to include in your risk assessments.
in time to expend a lot of money on an active defense launch? (e.g. a launch of an ION thruster which would sit on the object and when at correct orientation, would fire to push it slowly into a safe trajectory)
1. The farther out the object is, the less certain the prediction of Earth impact is. but 2. The object has to be quite far out for active defense to work.
Has anyone run the numbers on this?
We seem to have a lot of trouble investing in EFFECTIVE levels of action on a certain unnamed problem that science is, say 97% certain is going to affect us.
Assuming we had built one just in case, wouuld we send a $100 billion defense system out on a 1% chance of asteroid impact? 10%? 50%? 90%? 97%? How about a 1/1000 chance? or 1/1000,000 chance of catastrophic impact?
Sound bounces and distorts/phase shifts/interferes/is selectively dampened/... all over the place. Not practical to invert at a distance in any complex environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. There comes a time when a government just effectively openly declares:
"I am insane and megalomaniacal. Just ignore me and go full black market libertarian."
The Russian government apparently just did this.
Reportedly NSA was able up til the recent past to grab unencrypted data transfers from one data centre in for example. the Google cloud to another data centre.
This traffic may since have been encrypted by the pissed off cloud service provider companies.
Patent 5,796,967 looks like a patent on programs which send page templates and executable code to a client machine to display a dynamic user interface with buttons and text and stuff.
Doesn't this kind of mean they're claiming they've patented the dynamic web in general?
New IBM strategy, perhaps though up by "No Shit Sherlock" the top-secret successor to Watson:
"What is: Laying off our innovation staff and relying on wild-ass patent trolling for profit, Alex?"
in some jurisdictions, cars have to yield right of way to buses in general.
Buses certainly have right of weight.
Also, what's with the aggressive / obnoxious sneaking around cars in same lane tactic. Did someone program that or did the software learn it?
As I understand it, Google's studies of the topic are showing that having a human driver on hand will generally not help and will probably make the outcome worse. I think I read they found it takes about 1 second for a human driver to take over and be in effective control in the event they decide there is a problem that the computer can't handle. At typical car speeds, that 1 second is way too long.
And that's with Google test drivers who have been carefully briefed and assessed.
I think Google's tentative conclusion is that semi-auto (with assumption of driver responsibility and take-over) is bad, full auto is better.
If you just describe in plain English what you did as a fix to each bug, that is not subject to copyright. That's communicating an idea, which is not subject to copyright. Only the particular form of expression (or a straightforward derivative of the form) is subject to copyright.
Over the next several years, by the time self-driving car technology is good enough to be mainstream, and by the time legislation has changed to allow them in general use, electric cars will have sufficient range and price reduction that they will be a viable alternative for most current uses of personal automobiles and taxis/ubers etc.
When electric cars provide a viable alternative, and have lower carbon emissions even if coal generation continues, there is no excuse not to introduce a significant and ramping up price on carbon, for automotive fuels.
This would reduce the tendency for non-electric uses of personal vehicles to increase.
Proceeds from a sufficient carbon price could also be applied to speeding the conversion of the electricity generating system to more clean renewables,
Wait. Don't more than half of Americans think that an invisible sky fairy with a long beard and disapproving frown is running things (when he's not delicately burying fake dinosaur bones with a smirk on his face?)
Or believe in UFOs?
Or think that there is a titanic battle between our protective father sky fairy and an armada of UFOs,
or something along those lines.
"More than half of Americans think X" doesn't tell me anything about the quality or veracity of X. It tells me quite a bit about a particular half of Americans.
under house arrest in their own home.
They are not regular free human beings like you and me.
And the world allows this F'd up situation to continue.
Here's my publication of an informational and thoughtful nature on this ban:
"F**k off you ridiculous tin-pot dictator twerps."
How does that look via google translate?
For similar reasons.
telcomms want their customers to pay them directly for each extra thing. Free access to open internet is disruptive "giving it away" according to them. It's freeing their captive market.
Facebook also wants everyone to be on facebook, not the open internet, so that all the ad revenue comes to them.
Free basics - nice strategy to keep the customers within the (pay) walls - if you can get away with it.
and register itself as a non-profit organization in, oh I don't know, the Bahamas, or Liberia, or somewhere other than big-brotherland where it currently lives.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I've taken the trouble to collect the following incisive valid criticisms of this candidate from slashdot posts on this topic:
"I was tired of seeing her cunt face on TV"
"See ya later you fucking whore."
"She missed sucking cocks"
"All the work and time on the campaign trail, she missed swallowing down sweet jizz. You slutty bitch, Carly"
"Carly is a Dumb Bitch"
"But Carly's snatch? No way never not with a 10-foot pole. Dat bitch has probably got all sorts o diseases from all her gangbangs at HP. captcha: tightens"
"Can carly's pussy squirt?"
"you stupid bitch"
"I never liked that bitch"
"Maybe she'd make a good whore. Next role, carly?"
"...good riddance you dumb whore bitch!!!"
"See ya later dumb bitch"
"Good riddance you ugly whore."
"...soulless bitch Go fuck off now"
But the potty comments by any other name smell as shitty.
Those contributing that to the discussion sound like twisted little 14 year old boys trying to get the cred to join their neighborhood "hang out smoking outside the 7-11" gang.
Too stupid to have understood the basics of this science when it was realized 30-odd years ago.
Too stupid to have acknowledged the scientific consensus til it (and fires, droughts, cyclones) was hitting them over the head.
Too stupid to manage their own government science program, believing there was only one simple question, and it's answered already.
Dumb. Dumber. Dumbest. Are these the only choices we can elect?
Why is that exactly?
Why is above average intelligence and knowledge with a tinge of reality-bias not a prized attribute when we select our national leadership?
Do we follow some principle of not wanting to elect someone smarter than ourselves because, who knows what they might get up to that would just go right over my head? Instead, we seem to be way more comfortable electing "Joe nice bloke down the pub. Solid handshake on 'im.". What gives?
On the one hand, low-grade unskilled programming is a job that will be automated out of existence soon enough, so promoting this as "jobs for the new economy" strategy is misguided.
On the other hand, introducing things like "logic" and "arithmetic" and "logic + arithmetic" into the thinking of the average American cannot be a bad idea.
In my city,
there used to be a sign at the public beach that said something (in red circle with bar through) like "No fires"
Nowadays, the sign says
"No fires"
"No dogs off leash"
"No Vehicles"
"No smoking"
and about 4 other things I can't remember, probably including "No frisbees"
It would be much more efficient if they just put up a sign which says along the lines of:
"Whatever we haven't explicitly permitted you to do is forbidden, obviously!"
when they hear this policy proposal.
If American robot factories are going to be cost-competitive with Chinese manual factories or the upcoming Chinese robot factories, then why not bring back the "robo-facturing" (the new word for "manufacturing") to America.
Just don't expect it to bring job growth with it, as he is trying to sell.
Human-managed hybridization and selective breeding are by nature incremental modifications of living systems that have evolved their current form through billions of years of incremental evolution, tested by natural co-evolution and co-habitation uncountable numbers of times throughout those billions of years. The processes of modification used in hybridization/selective breeding mimic the well-tested change-processes of natural evolution.
In the near future, on the other hand, arbitrary genomes (assembled under computer program supervision from individual nucleobases) will be constructable with genetic engineering / synthetic biology science and technology.
The number of different possible living systems/subsystems/mechanisms thus constructable is literally, not figuratively, exponentially greater than the number that have already been incrementally designed/constructed by evolution or evolution+selective breeding.
Are you really trying to tell me that the risk level from that arbitrary synthetic biology is equivalent to the risk from selective breeding and hybridization?
Mathematically and logically, that is not a supportable position.
The risk level of synthetic biology (the unknown, perhaps unpredictable risks component) is a function of the number of possible novel mechanisms/subsystems/systems and the extent to which those novel mechanisms are different from pre-existent, evolution-tested mechanisms/subsystems/systems.
One can say, and tactically, one would say, that most arbitrarily human-designed and engineered synthetic biological mechanisms/subsystems/systems will obviously fail to thrive, but that is a red herring, because with enough cleverness, a proportion of them will thrive, and that proportion, still potentially an enormous variety and sometimes with substantive difference from existing living mechanisms, is what poses the risk.
Is not whether there are currently proven harms in any existing GM Organism.
The real problem is the following:
0. Every GMO case (and ecological context it is introduced into) is unique.
1. Therefore unanticipated issues may be novel with each case.
2. Problems could include direct toxicity or reduction in nutrient value or what have you.
3. Or problems could be ecological, in that the newly introduced artifical variety may outcompete a native organism, and or may change the balance of an ecosystem.
4. AND HERE'S THE KICKER
If ever such a thing as 2. or 3. occurs, it is occurring in a self-reproducing organism, which like all organisms, tries to proliferate itself across as much of the environment as it can (that's what life does, in general). You may not be able to put your genie back in the bottle. You may have achieved a widespread, unstoppable change or harm to an ecosystem (of difficult to guess in advance scale and severity).
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , granted, a science-fiction novel, but Sci-Fi authors are often scientist-class thinkers with a decent amount of foresight and imagination. The kind of people you need to include in your risk assessments.
of impact of a really dangerous one
in time to expend a lot of money on an active defense launch?
(e.g. a launch of an ION thruster which would sit on the object and when at correct orientation, would fire to push it slowly into a safe trajectory)
1. The farther out the object is, the less certain the prediction of Earth impact is.
but
2. The object has to be quite far out for active defense to work.
Has anyone run the numbers on this?
We seem to have a lot of trouble investing in EFFECTIVE levels of action on a certain unnamed problem that science is, say 97% certain is going to affect us.
Assuming we had built one just in case,
wouuld we send a $100 billion defense system out on a 1% chance of asteroid impact?
10%? 50%? 90%? 97%? How about a 1/1000 chance? or 1/1000,000 chance of catastrophic impact?
about this proposed French law.
d9gtj3ld9g73jgljtgud;4gh0y0jjokdgs.dd954kqfakva
Sound bounces and distorts/phase shifts/interferes/is selectively dampened/... all over the place.
Not practical to invert at a distance in any complex environment.