This same thing gets reported every single year. We all know nuclear weapons will never get used, but we can't get rid of them because it would then make us seem weak. Like it or not, this is the only thing standing between us and another large scale war.
2) It's not abuse, any more than making your kid eat his broccoli is abuse. Not liking specific food you could eat just fine something isn't grounds for special treatment.
3) If you intentionally starve yourself the only person you're hurting is you.
Cry me a fucking river. You're in prison, not the Hilton. Unless there's a medical reason to treat you differently you shouldn't be treated differently. He lost weight because he wasn't eating, not because the meals didn't contain sufficient nutrients to sustain him. It's his own damn fault.
It's imperative that when I develop, that I'm developing and testing using the same browser an end user will have. Introducing differences where you have a developer and a non-developer browser is a bad idea.
This is not the same as preventing the vulnerability. It's just taking away the control center. it does not prevent someone from doing it again in the future so stop thinking you're safe because you run a Mac.
You've managed to miss the point yet again, wired.
First off, test pilots take risks - they know the risks. They know them intimately. Death is always a real possibility with an experimental aircraft. Accidents happen, but I'm sure nobody there was saying "hey wouldn't it be cool if it crashed and everyone DIED?". This op-ed piece is written by a complete douche. Obviously commercial passenger space flight is going to start ridiculously expensive and be out of the reach of joe sixpack - but that's how everything starts. At one point, only the super rich could afford cars, now everyone's got one. We probably won't see affordable trips to space in our lifetime, but maybe my kid will. Or their kid after that. What I do know is that if nobody starts trying to do it, it will never happen.
Since you can't just buy a ticket to go to space at any price, it IS attempting to pushing boundaries - even if they're not the boundaries he'd like to be pushed.
>The theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, mandates that living organisms develop through a process of natural selection
No it doesn't. It only says that natural selection is one possible mechanism by which an evolutionary path is decided. We engage in artificial selection all the time and there's nothing natural about it.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""
This is a perfect opportunity to actually correct ignorance through debate. You go to these things and then pose the hard questions - the ones their theories can't account for, or only have fantastical answers with no basis in fact. Any time someone with a broken theory decides to showcase it in the face of solid science he's doing the world a favour by providing an opportunity for those who know better to show everyone why it's broken.
The absolute worst thing that could happen is that a creationist conference could be held in a place that is absent of any opposing view. It's much easier to convince someone that your opinion is right when nobody is opposing it.
That's an interesting idea for the budget-minded, but personally I think if performance is actually an issue I'd use SSDs for things that need to be performant, and store everything else on regular drives.
The point stands. These people who live life like if they do it right will live forever are in for a real shock when the reality greets them. Sure, you may live longer, but it won't be life that has any level of quality associated with it.
No really - have you actually looked at how helpless and broken most people are in their late 70s to early 80s? Why would anyone want to keep going? Why would anyone want to reduce the pleasure they get out of life in their prime to allow themselves to keep living after life ceases to be worth living?
Frankly, if I could just die at age 70 before my mind turns to shit and I can't control my bodily functions I'll be happy. Living for an extra 10+ years in the shadow of what you once were is not living. It's a cruel form of torture.
Slashdot Mirror
...nothing of value was lost.
...I have nothing but contempt for design firms that don't house even one real engineer.
"Battery prices are falling just due to small incremental improvements plus scaling"
You don't see any reduction in price for current consumer EVs, so the consumer doesn't actually win.
There is no real evidence to support an infinite amount of mass. So your "math" has no relevance.
Of course, when dealing with 100 billion galaxies, 1 in 10 is still really good odds.
...you guys stop designing the worlds worst interfaces for things. DO NOT HIRE ENGINEERS TO DESIGN THE UIs. It's important. Really.
...it would have been ok if Barbie had 2 women to write the code for her?
This same thing gets reported every single year. We all know nuclear weapons will never get used, but we can't get rid of them because it would then make us seem weak. Like it or not, this is the only thing standing between us and another large scale war.
Yeah, good luck with that one, RCMP! it's like law enforcement lives inside of it's own little reality distortion bubble.
1) He's not a victim. He's a convicted criminal.
2) It's not abuse, any more than making your kid eat his broccoli is abuse. Not liking specific food you could eat just fine something isn't grounds for special treatment.
3) If you intentionally starve yourself the only person you're hurting is you.
Cry me a fucking river. You're in prison, not the Hilton. Unless there's a medical reason to treat you differently you shouldn't be treated differently. He lost weight because he wasn't eating, not because the meals didn't contain sufficient nutrients to sustain him. It's his own damn fault.
It's imperative that when I develop, that I'm developing and testing using the same browser an end user will have. Introducing differences where you have a developer and a non-developer browser is a bad idea.
I find it increasingly more and more difficult to take Zuckerberg seriously.
...is not to play. You don't need facebook as much as you think you do, and the 500 people in your friends list are not really your friends.
This is not the same as preventing the vulnerability. It's just taking away the control center. it does not prevent someone from doing it again in the future so stop thinking you're safe because you run a Mac.
Why exactly does the EFF need to "campaign" for this? Does it not contain programmers good enough to just do it?
You've managed to miss the point yet again, wired.
First off, test pilots take risks - they know the risks. They know them intimately. Death is always a real possibility with an experimental aircraft. Accidents happen, but I'm sure nobody there was saying "hey wouldn't it be cool if it crashed and everyone DIED?". This op-ed piece is written by a complete douche. Obviously commercial passenger space flight is going to start ridiculously expensive and be out of the reach of joe sixpack - but that's how everything starts. At one point, only the super rich could afford cars, now everyone's got one. We probably won't see affordable trips to space in our lifetime, but maybe my kid will. Or their kid after that. What I do know is that if nobody starts trying to do it, it will never happen.
Since you can't just buy a ticket to go to space at any price, it IS attempting to pushing boundaries - even if they're not the boundaries he'd like to be pushed.
>The theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, mandates that living organisms develop through a process of natural selection
No it doesn't. It only says that natural selection is one possible mechanism by which an evolutionary path is decided. We engage in artificial selection all the time and there's nothing natural about it.
No, that's not what it's defined as at all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""
"Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they "require it.""
No, they don't require an intelligence at all. They require appropriate conditions are met. Those conditions do not necessarily imply an intelligence.
It's like one form of stupid is solved just to make way for another.
The same kind of loser that needs to put others down for doing in order to make himself sound superior.
We get that you're an underwear skidmark, but fear not. One day your mother will realize it's never too late for an abortion.
What work has Elon done on AI research that makes him qualified to speak about such things? Not to kick his achievements, but he's not an AI expert.
This is a perfect opportunity to actually correct ignorance through debate. You go to these things and then pose the hard questions - the ones their theories can't account for, or only have fantastical answers with no basis in fact. Any time someone with a broken theory decides to showcase it in the face of solid science he's doing the world a favour by providing an opportunity for those who know better to show everyone why it's broken.
The absolute worst thing that could happen is that a creationist conference could be held in a place that is absent of any opposing view. It's much easier to convince someone that your opinion is right when nobody is opposing it.
That's an interesting idea for the budget-minded, but personally I think if performance is actually an issue I'd use SSDs for things that need to be performant, and store everything else on regular drives.
The point stands. These people who live life like if they do it right will live forever are in for a real shock when the reality greets them. Sure, you may live longer, but it won't be life that has any level of quality associated with it.
No really - have you actually looked at how helpless and broken most people are in their late 70s to early 80s? Why would anyone want to keep going? Why would anyone want to reduce the pleasure they get out of life in their prime to allow themselves to keep living after life ceases to be worth living?
Frankly, if I could just die at age 70 before my mind turns to shit and I can't control my bodily functions I'll be happy. Living for an extra 10+ years in the shadow of what you once were is not living. It's a cruel form of torture.