You can measure how heavy something is, but how do you measure how light it is?
By means of an inverse, obviously. Funny how English-speaking people here are the only ones having comprehension problems with this. Somehow, everyone else grasps the concept readily.
Aside from the first person on the list, who doesn't really beg to differ, why would the remaining people, being totalitarians, be relevant for this issue?
TRUE security requires TWO factors (or more) so why in blazes didn't they store multiple copies of the key where multiple people have only part of the key? Then your backup to this "offline key" is having multiple partial copies of it in different hands, with the assurance that at least TWO or more people would be required to agree to provide their portion of the key to open the encrypted file.
If we build structures as minimal as the ISS, which has already clocked in at $150 billion, we're committing to launching one of those very big, very expensive rockets every month. That means either the initial investment needs to be way, way higher to make it more self-sufficient, or we need to incur rather hefty ongoing support costs, with a launch a month of those monsters.
If you used the SLS for that, you'd be right. Just like it was a bad idea to use a $1.2-billion-per-launch vehicle for launching ~15-tonne modules to the ISS when Russians could launch 20 tonne ones for $100 million apiece. But that's more of a political matter than a matter of technical necessity.
There was a rigged stunt (the machine had many, many games the human played to prepare, the human had none and even after only seeing the machine play 3 times thought he could come up with a strategy to beat it), and there is a very good reason we did not see more games.
That is absolutely not what's happened with computer Go. I find it hilarious how you twist easily verifiable facts into lies to justify your denial.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they work this way just fine. Why wouldn't they?
You can measure how heavy something is, but how do you measure how light it is?
By means of an inverse, obviously. Funny how English-speaking people here are the only ones having comprehension problems with this. Somehow, everyone else grasps the concept readily.
What you will also find there is that nuclear costs less in materials consumed
That must be why the EPR in UK will cost less than half as much as recent German solar... Oh, wait, it's the other way round? Never mind...
It's called virtual circuits, isn't it?
And so was China, and the Soviet Union was socialist.
Finnish
But not Finlandized, I hope?
All you have is a definition from books full of fallacies.
There's not a lot of books *without* fallacies, most of them mathematical.
We have history. That makes you _wrong_.
You're not the only one to have history. I have history, too. Does that make you wrong?
Totalitarianism is wrapped into all command economies. Marxist economies are command by definition
Could you quote Marx' writing on that? I must have missed that part.
hummmm, from the people who brought us flash.
So they brought you memories of flash, too, and you have those in your computer right now, right?
"Communist nations", my ass. I'm not even sure that *nations* are supposed to exist under communism.
Aside from the first person on the list, who doesn't really beg to differ, why would the remaining people, being totalitarians, be relevant for this issue?
So you believe in 100% TAXATION??!?! Communist Fool!
There's no taxation in communism, since there's no state. :-p
From melamine? Possibly.
TRUE security requires TWO factors (or more) so why in blazes didn't they store multiple copies of the key where multiple people have only part of the key? Then your backup to this "offline key" is having multiple partial copies of it in different hands, with the assurance that at least TWO or more people would be required to agree to provide their portion of the key to open the encrypted file.
Something like this?
This move was designed to encourage build out
This was designed to encourage build out, too... :-p
If we build structures as minimal as the ISS, which has already clocked in at $150 billion, we're committing to launching one of those very big, very expensive rockets every month. That means either the initial investment needs to be way, way higher to make it more self-sufficient, or we need to incur rather hefty ongoing support costs, with a launch a month of those monsters.
If you used the SLS for that, you'd be right. Just like it was a bad idea to use a $1.2-billion-per-launch vehicle for launching ~15-tonne modules to the ISS when Russians could launch 20 tonne ones for $100 million apiece. But that's more of a political matter than a matter of technical necessity.
You are aware that he's trolling you?
Exactly, robots don't suffer from genetic bottlenecks.
9 999 998 views
Crap, I almost won something, apparently.
Why do some people think that autopilots would make things worse? This is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Uh...because nautical miles aren't silly?
There is in many languages.
Had he called it a critique of Siri's lack of context you might have a point. But he just put it out there with no context himself. Ironic?
You mean he cut out the silly response which provided a context in itself?
Kid threatens to shoot up school.
It's weird to threaten a school you can't even find without an automated assistant.
Outage outrage?
There was a rigged stunt (the machine had many, many games the human played to prepare, the human had none and even after only seeing the machine play 3 times thought he could come up with a strategy to beat it), and there is a very good reason we did not see more games.
That is absolutely not what's happened with computer Go. I find it hilarious how you twist easily verifiable facts into lies to justify your denial.
It's not even slightly true.