Also, if we could get these murder organisms robots working telling them to hunt down and kill all the bioinvaders of this or that variety would be nice. Murder all the first that look like this fish. Would be wildly useful for saving the environment. Or something like hunt down and murder every rabbit on this entire continent.
You see, once once of the bots detects the weed. It adds it to the drone swarms' blockchain so that if something is seen in that exact location again, it can be determined to be a return of the stem before requiring it to leaf. Just gotta make the glorified roomba plant cutters use a blockchain for data sharing rather than something more practical. From here on out, for the sake of our stock prices, all of our databases should be blockchains.
Not only that you could likely genetically engineer your plants to have some proper tracer that identifies them to the robot. Then you could do away with basically all that deep learning figure out what type of plant it is nonsense. Just make a robot that cuts down all plants without that marker. Just needs to be cheap to detect, etc. Then your computing power is down to what basically amounts to nothing at all and you can just cut them off at the soil line each time they emerge without said marker.
E-cigs very very much do cut into the profits of tobacco companies. Their attempt to take over that market is self-preservation. But, compare the costs of a pack a day habit of cigarettes to a comparable habit of vaping the same amount of nicotine and the cost difference is massive. The vape juice and even a top-of-the-line vape cost a fraction of the price. It's less spent than even just the profit margin on the cigarettes directly.
You are just wrong. It is categorically the fact that countries with single payer health care systems have done exactly that study suggested and found that they would get massive health benefits and health care cost reductions, and found absolutely that E-cigarettes are "95% less toxic". You then attribute this not existing, regardless of that fact that it totally does exist, to lobbying etc, which is moot because, you're wrong.
I am at times when looking at the data fully understanding why Ignaz Semmelweis became so irate and started writing angry letters to his fellow doctors basically calling them murderers. In his case they weren't washing their hands before surgery. But, he was categorically right. And seriously, goddamned murderers! I generally view people who whine about vaping, bringing up terrible studies like popcorn lung or whatnot as basically being murderers. They are saying things that will get people killed, and thousands more people than the antivaxxers and even the people who claim statins are evil and heart attacks are due to inflammation.
No. While a lot of people do switch to e-cigs then down their nicotine to zero. I'm pretty sure that the health benefits accrue when one switches to e-cigs. The tobacco products kill because of the tars in them that cause cancer and most of the other health effects. Those are eliminated and you are left with a powerful stimulant.
The requisite comparison to smoking is because people are very typically swapping smoking for vaping. And to determine the ill-effects you need to take that into effect. There's likely some people who might take up vaping directly, who might not have taken up smoking. And the stimulants might be able to unilaterally lead to their deaths, especially if they have an underlying heart or lung defect. And those deaths would be entirely the result of vaping. The problem though is you need to take into account the lives saved by the exceptionally common happening of people giving up smoking in order to vape, and even without attenuating any nicotine, get much much healthier in very short order and can run marathons.
There might be additional health benefits to attenuating the nicotine to zero and quitting vaping too, but they pale in comparison to swapping smoking for vaping. The deadly cancer causing tars are not habit forming, in themselves, and can be completely mitigated this way. While I'm not at all convinced it's as benign as coffee, if people took up drinking coffee because it entirely replaced alcoholism and opioid addiction, I couldn't see any moral stance other than welcoming it as a savior. And if we suppose it might be worse for you than coffee, that's okay because alcoholism and opioid addiction combined don't kill as many people as smoking does.
There's not enough research to say how benign it is, but we can say it's more benign than smoking. And that makes vaping a certifiable lifesaver; which is why it must be compared to traditional smoking.
The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.
Add to this the fact that this research will be used to attack e-cigs and this research will end up causing many thousands of deaths that otherwise would have been prevented. Any valid determination should find e-cigs are on par with vaccines and clean water. They are gutting traditional tobacco products to the life saving result of what is going to be millions of people in short order.
One would assume you could do so for a few million dollars. The zero days would cost a bit, and it would be like 100,000 man hours. But well within the reach of a Fortune 500 business.
What if my attacker is Russia? Can I hack Russia back and with what kind of force? Can I break their government systems, destroy their computer, launch a stuxnet like virus upon them and destroy the computer systems of the Kremlin? Or would such things maybe be acts of war and a bit beyond the pale?
There's some cases when you could invoke something like BrickerBot against a DDoS attack coming from a bunch of webcams and other unsecured devices. Would I be allowed to attack back against these devices and brick some random guy's webcam or router simple because it's unsecured and being used in the attack?
I mean that's the right target right? I should be allowed to use the same exploit used to compromise that system in mass and destroy vast number of webcams or routers or whatever devices are attacking me right?
An extra 6 seconds or so is time well spent given that it would take me longer than that to fish through the feces that are Bing's search results. I'm gaining time. It's efficiency rather than irrationalism. Getting a false lead can suck down a solid minute. I am at a loss as to how anybody could think those 6 seconds are poorly spent.
Seriously, stop trying. Accidentally Binging something is terrible, but even with the results right there in front of me... I still closed it down, went to google and typed the same search over again.
No. You can have 90% of the money this idiotic suit will cost us, nothing more. Fuck you I want 8 billion dollars. Wow you suck at being a patent troll, fine, we'll go to trial. It'll take a decade and you'll be belly up in five years.
So long as you wouldn't be bailing me out if I were millions of dollars in debt from my collapsing single-truck-empire, then yes that shouldn't be there. But, the damages could certainly be the value of the truck plus the money you might have made if you had the truck, plus interest, minus the value of the now returned truck.
They had a point, people were hating Java at that time because Microsoft was saying they had a proper implementation and it was buggy crap, making people think that Java was buggy crap. That's a pretty solid lawsuit. They are using our trademark and making us look bad.
No. From a legal standpoint Java was released at one point on a free license. So Google has every right to the language. They rewrote the libraries as such (there are notable differences and improvements in Android's). Java was released under an open license at one point. So they totally can use the language as it appeared at that point. Also Java is just gets converted over to Dalvik bytecode and then compiled on ART in modern Android or runs on the Dalvik VM in the earlier versions.
They are *only* using the language itself (and there's some rumor about adopting Swift as a first order language as it was equally opened under an open license).
Make no mistake, Oracle should lose. They don't have to change a thing.
Since the hack needed to access the phone is largely something the Apple or Google would fix if they knew about demanding the source code might expose the vulnerability and thus be refused thereby dismissing the case.
You have the time to go to the judge and get a warrant per the law. If you want to hook some hacking device up to my phone to figure out if I was texting somehow without accessing my private data, I'm going to need the source code to verify that my rights weren't violated. Also, violations of the DMCA apply to me hacking my own phone, not the cops using a device to hack my phone.
There's a pretty bunch of social engineering involved with trick or treaters and one is they go where they go. So the places they go and the people who go there basically is the result of a chaotic process. If you want to prime the pump you need to not only have the houses done up, but on the day get people based on there being people. It's like seeding your case with money while busking or having extra produce while selling produce for the illusion of choice. It's not simply get decorations get destinations, it's actually kind of hard, people tend to go out of their neighborhood to get to the apt places and as such they often go to the same place year after year, so if you got nobody this year, you can't turn it around in a single year. Getting everybody on board isn't enough, you also need to be seen as a place to trick or treat, which means you need people there to get people there.
If you actually care about security maybe you shouldn't let information from the internet control your computer. I mean sure they can edit your webpages via a router to insert whatever, but the inserting whatever part is could just also be malware on the internet proper.
The point of TNO is that you might as well assume your router is altering webpages and inserting malicious content (either that or there's some already on the internet). One should view the internet as a black box of security threats and then just go from there. Yeah, routers can do that stuff. Security is what you do with that understanding. You don't get a router you can trust. You don't trust the router or the rest of the internet.
I took the bus from my house to college from time to time. It literally went from a block from my house straight to the college. It was still a pain in the ass.
Seriously price per gb isn't a barrier. They could sell the 120GBs for a dollar, it would just be money losing and stupid. But, it would smash the "barrier". When there ain't nothin' in your way, that ain't a barrier.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if we could get these murder organisms robots working telling them to hunt down and kill all the bioinvaders of this or that variety would be nice. Murder all the first that look like this fish. Would be wildly useful for saving the environment. Or something like hunt down and murder every rabbit on this entire continent.
You see, once once of the bots detects the weed. It adds it to the drone swarms' blockchain so that if something is seen in that exact location again, it can be determined to be a return of the stem before requiring it to leaf. Just gotta make the glorified roomba plant cutters use a blockchain for data sharing rather than something more practical. From here on out, for the sake of our stock prices, all of our databases should be blockchains.
Not only that you could likely genetically engineer your plants to have some proper tracer that identifies them to the robot. Then you could do away with basically all that deep learning figure out what type of plant it is nonsense. Just make a robot that cuts down all plants without that marker. Just needs to be cheap to detect, etc. Then your computing power is down to what basically amounts to nothing at all and you can just cut them off at the soil line each time they emerge without said marker.
E-cigs very very much do cut into the profits of tobacco companies. Their attempt to take over that market is self-preservation. But, compare the costs of a pack a day habit of cigarettes to a comparable habit of vaping the same amount of nicotine and the cost difference is massive. The vape juice and even a top-of-the-line vape cost a fraction of the price. It's less spent than even just the profit margin on the cigarettes directly.
You are just wrong. It is categorically the fact that countries with single payer health care systems have done exactly that study suggested and found that they would get massive health benefits and health care cost reductions, and found absolutely that E-cigarettes are "95% less toxic". You then attribute this not existing, regardless of that fact that it totally does exist, to lobbying etc, which is moot because, you're wrong.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-...
NHS is the national health service in the UK. This study was from two years ago.
I am at times when looking at the data fully understanding why Ignaz Semmelweis became so irate and started writing angry letters to his fellow doctors basically calling them murderers. In his case they weren't washing their hands before surgery. But, he was categorically right. And seriously, goddamned murderers! I generally view people who whine about vaping, bringing up terrible studies like popcorn lung or whatnot as basically being murderers. They are saying things that will get people killed, and thousands more people than the antivaxxers and even the people who claim statins are evil and heart attacks are due to inflammation.
No. While a lot of people do switch to e-cigs then down their nicotine to zero. I'm pretty sure that the health benefits accrue when one switches to e-cigs. The tobacco products kill because of the tars in them that cause cancer and most of the other health effects. Those are eliminated and you are left with a powerful stimulant.
The requisite comparison to smoking is because people are very typically swapping smoking for vaping. And to determine the ill-effects you need to take that into effect. There's likely some people who might take up vaping directly, who might not have taken up smoking. And the stimulants might be able to unilaterally lead to their deaths, especially if they have an underlying heart or lung defect. And those deaths would be entirely the result of vaping. The problem though is you need to take into account the lives saved by the exceptionally common happening of people giving up smoking in order to vape, and even without attenuating any nicotine, get much much healthier in very short order and can run marathons.
There might be additional health benefits to attenuating the nicotine to zero and quitting vaping too, but they pale in comparison to swapping smoking for vaping. The deadly cancer causing tars are not habit forming, in themselves, and can be completely mitigated this way. While I'm not at all convinced it's as benign as coffee, if people took up drinking coffee because it entirely replaced alcoholism and opioid addiction, I couldn't see any moral stance other than welcoming it as a savior. And if we suppose it might be worse for you than coffee, that's okay because alcoholism and opioid addiction combined don't kill as many people as smoking does.
There's not enough research to say how benign it is, but we can say it's more benign than smoking. And that makes vaping a certifiable lifesaver; which is why it must be compared to traditional smoking.
The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.
Add to this the fact that this research will be used to attack e-cigs and this research will end up causing many thousands of deaths that otherwise would have been prevented. Any valid determination should find e-cigs are on par with vaccines and clean water. They are gutting traditional tobacco products to the life saving result of what is going to be millions of people in short order.
One would assume you could do so for a few million dollars. The zero days would cost a bit, and it would be like 100,000 man hours. But well within the reach of a Fortune 500 business.
What if my attacker is Russia? Can I hack Russia back and with what kind of force? Can I break their government systems, destroy their computer, launch a stuxnet like virus upon them and destroy the computer systems of the Kremlin? Or would such things maybe be acts of war and a bit beyond the pale?
There's some cases when you could invoke something like BrickerBot against a DDoS attack coming from a bunch of webcams and other unsecured devices. Would I be allowed to attack back against these devices and brick some random guy's webcam or router simple because it's unsecured and being used in the attack?
I mean that's the right target right? I should be allowed to use the same exploit used to compromise that system in mass and destroy vast number of webcams or routers or whatever devices are attacking me right?
I'd buy 5 tvs, and mount them all to the wall and give them a slight curve for the same money.
Turns out people who exist maintain their existence for longer than those who fail to exist.
An extra 6 seconds or so is time well spent given that it would take me longer than that to fish through the feces that are Bing's search results. I'm gaining time. It's efficiency rather than irrationalism. Getting a false lead can suck down a solid minute. I am at a loss as to how anybody could think those 6 seconds are poorly spent.
Seriously, stop trying. Accidentally Binging something is terrible, but even with the results right there in front of me... I still closed it down, went to google and typed the same search over again.
No. You can have 90% of the money this idiotic suit will cost us, nothing more.
Fuck you I want 8 billion dollars.
Wow you suck at being a patent troll, fine, we'll go to trial. It'll take a decade and you'll be belly up in five years.
So long as you wouldn't be bailing me out if I were millions of dollars in debt from my collapsing single-truck-empire, then yes that shouldn't be there. But, the damages could certainly be the value of the truck plus the money you might have made if you had the truck, plus interest, minus the value of the now returned truck.
Microsoft got sued on the trademark. They called their VM Java, and they were actually pretty crappy at it.
http://www.javaworld.com/artic...
They had a point, people were hating Java at that time because Microsoft was saying they had a proper implementation and it was buggy crap, making people think that Java was buggy crap. That's a pretty solid lawsuit. They are using our trademark and making us look bad.
No. From a legal standpoint Java was released at one point on a free license. So Google has every right to the language. They rewrote the libraries as such (there are notable differences and improvements in Android's). Java was released under an open license at one point. So they totally can use the language as it appeared at that point. Also Java is just gets converted over to Dalvik bytecode and then compiled on ART in modern Android or runs on the Dalvik VM in the earlier versions.
They are *only* using the language itself (and there's some rumor about adopting Swift as a first order language as it was equally opened under an open license).
Make no mistake, Oracle should lose. They don't have to change a thing.
Since the hack needed to access the phone is largely something the Apple or Google would fix if they knew about demanding the source code might expose the vulnerability and thus be refused thereby dismissing the case.
You have the time to go to the judge and get a warrant per the law. If you want to hook some hacking device up to my phone to figure out if I was texting somehow without accessing my private data, I'm going to need the source code to verify that my rights weren't violated. Also, violations of the DMCA apply to me hacking my own phone, not the cops using a device to hack my phone.
There's a pretty bunch of social engineering involved with trick or treaters and one is they go where they go. So the places they go and the people who go there basically is the result of a chaotic process. If you want to prime the pump you need to not only have the houses done up, but on the day get people based on there being people. It's like seeding your case with money while busking or having extra produce while selling produce for the illusion of choice. It's not simply get decorations get destinations, it's actually kind of hard, people tend to go out of their neighborhood to get to the apt places and as such they often go to the same place year after year, so if you got nobody this year, you can't turn it around in a single year. Getting everybody on board isn't enough, you also need to be seen as a place to trick or treat, which means you need people there to get people there.
You might want to give up.
If you actually care about security maybe you shouldn't let information from the internet control your computer. I mean sure they can edit your webpages via a router to insert whatever, but the inserting whatever part is could just also be malware on the internet proper.
The point of TNO is that you might as well assume your router is altering webpages and inserting malicious content (either that or there's some already on the internet). One should view the internet as a black box of security threats and then just go from there. Yeah, routers can do that stuff. Security is what you do with that understanding. You don't get a router you can trust. You don't trust the router or the rest of the internet.
I took the bus from my house to college from time to time. It literally went from a block from my house straight to the college. It was still a pain in the ass.
Seriously price per gb isn't a barrier. They could sell the 120GBs for a dollar, it would just be money losing and stupid. But, it would smash the "barrier". When there ain't nothin' in your way, that ain't a barrier.