No. Computers run calculations with seeded random inputs which are interpreted as simulations. A computer "simulates" aerodynamics by calculating them. The human mind "becomes" the object, and "feels" the answer in the simulation.
A computer runs 2+2=? simulation. If that's not a simulation, then computers don't run simulations. If that is a simulation, then we disagree on the definition of simulation.
An autonomous car will not have the option of saying 'I don't know what the hell to do' and hand control back to the humans inside. It has to be perfect, or at least much better than a human driver in all conditions.
That's easy. The only situations that it fails in is "when the computer has already made 1,000,000 mistakes to be fording a river in the middle of a flood, and there exists no safe option, what will it do" questions. The "driving into a blizzard" questions are easy. The conditions become poor. Pull off at the next safe spot. Hand control of a parked car back to the human.
With paper (for technical reading), I mark 5+ pages, and flip back and forth, comparing different sections with each other. Reading a book for pleasure, I want a more narrow column than my screen, because you lose track of the line reading. Also, the columns don't work well because they often seem to be competing for the smallest type that doesn't generate complaints. Larger print, two columns is better. I keep my computer screen farther away than I keep books, so I like larger type, but it's not a vision problem. Just a preference.
I have a 2560x1440 with a 1440x900 in portrait mode. If I ever upgrade, I'll get a second 1440x900 on the other side. They can be used for surround view, but nobody takes advantage of that, so instead, it usually holds a game on the main and a guide or IM on the side.
The complex fix is to delete all root certs, and allow sites on a per-site bases. This isn't used because, in practice, it's less secure than accepting the compromised CA's certs.
That's a different question. The question was whether the government is a root CA. Whether they need to be to have control over one is an unrelated question.
So assault should be legal. Holding someone up at gunpoint should be legal, as you voluntarily gave up your wallet, and have no physical harm to show for it. Bow about bruises? They heal and leave no permanent damage. So should you be able to beat someone black and blue, so long as you don't cause permanent damage?
So you have the right to emit sounds so long as they don't cause a pain reaction? Or is pain ok, as that's just a psychological effect? It'd take actual hearing loss levels to be able to complain in the Libertarian utopia?
He was never even accused of "rape" but a lower sexual misconduct. He lied to obtain sex. In the US, that fraud is perfectly legal, but in Sweden, it's a crime. The sex was consensual, but it had conditions that were not met.
Learn how the Swedish legal system works, and you'll understand why: charges cannot be formally filed UNTIL he is given the interview for which the extradition request was filed.
It was described as the only time in history where Sweden knew exactly where someone wanted for an interview was extradited, rather than interviewed. Also, he was interviewed. Then let go, only to be re-interviewed, of they require an interview before charges, and he's been interviewed already, why do they need to do it again?
The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country.
Right. The US refuses to lay "official" charges because those come with responsibilities. The EFF could start petitioning on his behalf. Demands could be made for a speedy and open trial, and other things the US doesn't want.
It would be silly for Sweden to promise this.
It would be perfectly sane to do so. It would be a statement that he'd be held for the "crimes" he is of interest for, and any charges from anywhere else would not be considered. It's not unheard of for countries to do so. Perhaps a promise that he'll be deported to Australia at the end of the proceedings for the pending Swedish charges, regardless of any intervening actions from any other governments.
Nope, the only thing standing between him and the US is the UK. It's standard practice to "invade" embassies. The only requirement is that you give sufficient warning (so that they can evacuate official personnel). As Assange isn't an official attache, he'd be arrestable the moment the embassy recognition from the UK ran out.
That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.
Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US, and not in Sweden. That's why there is such a misunderstanding. What he did would have been 100% legal in the US. But he wasn't in the US, but the Slashdotters have trouble separating out jurisdiction, and speak as if the US should force the world to live under US law.
Yes, lets. Sweden is, for the first time ever, refusing to interview a suspect abroad at their current location. So either they find something exceptional about him, or it was just a coincidence. The most simple answer is that there's something exceptional about him, and US involvement, or Swedish politics seem the most likely culprits. When asked for confirmation either way, the Swedes refuse to comment or clarify. If it were a simple matter, they'd have no reason not to. So the most simple explanation is the more complex one, as the simple one fails all basic logic.
Many here are trashing Assange because they're establishment shills, not because they genuinely care that he didn't wear a condom in an uber-feminist country.
I can't tell with the trolls if they are lying, or if they truly think themselves experts in events when they have the most basic facts wrong.
He committed what the conservative media calls "rape" by committing fraud for sex. He lied for personal gain. That's fraud. Fraud to obtain sex in Sweden is fraud. He is accused of fraud, no more. Consent was given conditionally. He violated that condition. Thus the sex was (At the time) unconsented. Strictly, that can be called rape. But because there was tentative consent, just not informed consent, it's not "rape", just a sexual misconduct without a legal analogue in the US, as lying for sex is called "sex", and lying for personal gain is a good thing.
The US has abused that tactic enough they England makes the US follow at least a few of the laws. Part of an extradition hearing is essentially trying the case and seeing if it has merits. If the US doesn't prove the merits of the case, then extradition should be blocked. But allowing a CIA kidnapping from Sweden has no such legal requirements. It was presumed a non-extradition extraction would take place. Perhaps a deportation to Australia with a stop in NYC (not necessarily the most direct route, but not an insane one), and in NYC he misses his plane.
The conspiracy theorists point out this is the first time in history Sweden knew the location of the suspect and refused to interview them at that location. Until Sweden can explain the uniqueness of this situation, it seems there must be some hidden agenda. If the agenda wasn't hidden, it would follow the previous times where interviews were conducted over the phone, video, or in person with Swedish officials who traveled abroad. Assange was never "in hiding". That was McAfee, who was at unknown/undisclosed locations. Assange gave Sweden his number, and they never rang, then complained that he didn't contact them.
One is not required by law to turn oneself over once accused. And entire trials have been done in absentia before. He has lawyers in the court representing him, so why not just proceed?
Sure they did, according to Cheney, Saddam turnded away al Queda, and to do so, had to discuss with them terms and such, so he had "dealings" with terrorists, thus started the war.
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
The discretion given police allows them to not enforce any law they don't like. The police could choose to stop enforcing all the stupid laws tomorrow. That's the point of the separation of powers. If the legislature passes a bad law, it can be "veto"ed by the executive not executing it, even if the law wasn't vetoed or the veto failed.
BA is PA. The BAs here take meeting minutes, and ask for clarifications where needed. For the additional job of "asking dumb questions", they are paid 5x what a PA is paid. They don't know anything about anything, and if they do accidentally learn something, play dumb.
Could you post your calculations that lead you to that conclusion. Do you think that the engineers who designed the space craft forgot to make the same calculation?
Power falls off at the square of the distance. Nobody ever said that the engineers failed to make that calculation, but that the power levels of the craft would have to be lower than my phone power needs to be able to function at those distances. That seems difficult. Nobody said impossible. Nobody said it wouldn't work. Someone said that the power would be low that far out. The rest was fabricated by you.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Computers run calculations with seeded random inputs which are interpreted as simulations. A computer "simulates" aerodynamics by calculating them. The human mind "becomes" the object, and "feels" the answer in the simulation.
A computer runs 2+2=? simulation. If that's not a simulation, then computers don't run simulations. If that is a simulation, then we disagree on the definition of simulation.
An autonomous car will not have the option of saying 'I don't know what the hell to do' and hand control back to the humans inside. It has to be perfect, or at least much better than a human driver in all conditions.
That's easy. The only situations that it fails in is "when the computer has already made 1,000,000 mistakes to be fording a river in the middle of a flood, and there exists no safe option, what will it do" questions. The "driving into a blizzard" questions are easy. The conditions become poor. Pull off at the next safe spot. Hand control of a parked car back to the human.
I see low carb diets pushed by the mainstream. The push back is the mainstream doesn't endorse the high-calorie high-fat diets.
There's no evidence that a hgh-fat no-carb diet is good for you.
The candy-granola bars that are mostly sugar are bad, but "pure" granola is not considered bad.
With paper (for technical reading), I mark 5+ pages, and flip back and forth, comparing different sections with each other. Reading a book for pleasure, I want a more narrow column than my screen, because you lose track of the line reading. Also, the columns don't work well because they often seem to be competing for the smallest type that doesn't generate complaints. Larger print, two columns is better. I keep my computer screen farther away than I keep books, so I like larger type, but it's not a vision problem. Just a preference.
I have a 2560x1440 with a 1440x900 in portrait mode. If I ever upgrade, I'll get a second 1440x900 on the other side. They can be used for surround view, but nobody takes advantage of that, so instead, it usually holds a game on the main and a guide or IM on the side.
The complex fix is to delete all root certs, and allow sites on a per-site bases. This isn't used because, in practice, it's less secure than accepting the compromised CA's certs.
That's a different question. The question was whether the government is a root CA. Whether they need to be to have control over one is an unrelated question.
So assault should be legal. Holding someone up at gunpoint should be legal, as you voluntarily gave up your wallet, and have no physical harm to show for it. Bow about bruises? They heal and leave no permanent damage. So should you be able to beat someone black and blue, so long as you don't cause permanent damage?
So you have the right to emit sounds so long as they don't cause a pain reaction? Or is pain ok, as that's just a psychological effect? It'd take actual hearing loss levels to be able to complain in the Libertarian utopia?
I posted a comment on Computer World web site in the '90s, and was sent two books to review. Got to keep the books.
He has been questioned on those charges, so where's the trial?
And Sweden regularly questions people over the phone or internationally where convenient, yet refuses to do so for this case. Why?
He was never even accused of "rape" but a lower sexual misconduct. He lied to obtain sex. In the US, that fraud is perfectly legal, but in Sweden, it's a crime. The sex was consensual, but it had conditions that were not met.
Learn how the Swedish legal system works, and you'll understand why: charges cannot be formally filed UNTIL he is given the interview for which the extradition request was filed.
It was described as the only time in history where Sweden knew exactly where someone wanted for an interview was extradited, rather than interviewed. Also, he was interviewed. Then let go, only to be re-interviewed, of they require an interview before charges, and he's been interviewed already, why do they need to do it again?
The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country.
Right. The US refuses to lay "official" charges because those come with responsibilities. The EFF could start petitioning on his behalf. Demands could be made for a speedy and open trial, and other things the US doesn't want.
It would be silly for Sweden to promise this.
It would be perfectly sane to do so. It would be a statement that he'd be held for the "crimes" he is of interest for, and any charges from anywhere else would not be considered. It's not unheard of for countries to do so. Perhaps a promise that he'll be deported to Australia at the end of the proceedings for the pending Swedish charges, regardless of any intervening actions from any other governments.
Reasonable, and not unheard of.
Nope, the only thing standing between him and the US is the UK. It's standard practice to "invade" embassies. The only requirement is that you give sufficient warning (so that they can evacuate official personnel). As Assange isn't an official attache, he'd be arrestable the moment the embassy recognition from the UK ran out.
That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.
Sweden does not have a consent requirement.
Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US, and not in Sweden. That's why there is such a misunderstanding. What he did would have been 100% legal in the US. But he wasn't in the US, but the Slashdotters have trouble separating out jurisdiction, and speak as if the US should force the world to live under US law.
Apply Occam's razor (gently).
Yes, lets. Sweden is, for the first time ever, refusing to interview a suspect abroad at their current location. So either they find something exceptional about him, or it was just a coincidence. The most simple answer is that there's something exceptional about him, and US involvement, or Swedish politics seem the most likely culprits. When asked for confirmation either way, the Swedes refuse to comment or clarify. If it were a simple matter, they'd have no reason not to. So the most simple explanation is the more complex one, as the simple one fails all basic logic.
Many here are trashing Assange because they're establishment shills, not because they genuinely care that he didn't wear a condom in an uber-feminist country.
I can't tell with the trolls if they are lying, or if they truly think themselves experts in events when they have the most basic facts wrong.
He committed what the conservative media calls "rape" by committing fraud for sex. He lied for personal gain. That's fraud. Fraud to obtain sex in Sweden is fraud. He is accused of fraud, no more. Consent was given conditionally. He violated that condition. Thus the sex was (At the time) unconsented. Strictly, that can be called rape. But because there was tentative consent, just not informed consent, it's not "rape", just a sexual misconduct without a legal analogue in the US, as lying for sex is called "sex", and lying for personal gain is a good thing.
The US has abused that tactic enough they England makes the US follow at least a few of the laws. Part of an extradition hearing is essentially trying the case and seeing if it has merits. If the US doesn't prove the merits of the case, then extradition should be blocked. But allowing a CIA kidnapping from Sweden has no such legal requirements. It was presumed a non-extradition extraction would take place. Perhaps a deportation to Australia with a stop in NYC (not necessarily the most direct route, but not an insane one), and in NYC he misses his plane.
The conspiracy theorists point out this is the first time in history Sweden knew the location of the suspect and refused to interview them at that location. Until Sweden can explain the uniqueness of this situation, it seems there must be some hidden agenda. If the agenda wasn't hidden, it would follow the previous times where interviews were conducted over the phone, video, or in person with Swedish officials who traveled abroad. Assange was never "in hiding". That was McAfee, who was at unknown/undisclosed locations. Assange gave Sweden his number, and they never rang, then complained that he didn't contact them.
One is not required by law to turn oneself over once accused. And entire trials have been done in absentia before. He has lawyers in the court representing him, so why not just proceed?
Sure they did, according to Cheney, Saddam turnded away al Queda, and to do so, had to discuss with them terms and such, so he had "dealings" with terrorists, thus started the war.
At least that's how Cheney spun it.
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
The discretion given police allows them to not enforce any law they don't like. The police could choose to stop enforcing all the stupid laws tomorrow. That's the point of the separation of powers. If the legislature passes a bad law, it can be "veto"ed by the executive not executing it, even if the law wasn't vetoed or the veto failed.
BA is PA. The BAs here take meeting minutes, and ask for clarifications where needed. For the additional job of "asking dumb questions", they are paid 5x what a PA is paid. They don't know anything about anything, and if they do accidentally learn something, play dumb.
Could you post your calculations that lead you to that conclusion. Do you think that the engineers who designed the space craft forgot to make the same calculation?
Power falls off at the square of the distance. Nobody ever said that the engineers failed to make that calculation, but that the power levels of the craft would have to be lower than my phone power needs to be able to function at those distances. That seems difficult. Nobody said impossible. Nobody said it wouldn't work. Someone said that the power would be low that far out. The rest was fabricated by you.