They have some autonomy, but no more than barbed wire or a cloud of mustard gas, and we have legal frameworks for those sort of autonomous weapons. The autonomy at issue lately is in target acquisition. Ironically the sort of thing that previous autonomous weapons lacked - the ability to distinguish a target from a non-target - is exactly the thing that raises ethical questions.
The actual conspiracy theory is that it's five people at Freescale who are authors on a particular patent, and it's not true anyway, but it's funny to see how this one has mutated.
Reference audio isn't for everyone, and can be a bit flat when you have a lot of background noise. I'd suggest something like £20 on a pair of nice Sennheiser PX100s. Entry level price, but pleasingly and enthusiastically overcooked sound.
If you think that 256 kbps AAC is "compressed to hell" you probably have a place at Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters as some sort of bat-themed superhero.
The page states that they can only access information which is not encrypted, and is "active", whatever that means. Reading between the lines, it seems they can get at information that's currently in RAM.
Apparently not. It sounds like they're limited to whatever applications are currently running though:
Upon receipt of a valid search warrant, Apple can extract certain categories of active data from passcode locked iOS devices. Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. Apple can perform this data extraction process on iOS devices running iOS 4 or more recent versions of iOS. Please note the only categories of user generated active files that can be provided to law enforcement, pursuant to a valid search warrant, are: SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party App data.
Their parameters aren't simply chosen, though: most of them come from a disparate range of experimental observations, and the remainder are constrained to reasonable values. Getting experiment out with experiment in, particularly when it's a range of different experiment types in each case, is strong evidence that a model is accurate.
"The free parameters of our model are set to physically plausible values and have been adjusted within the allowed range to roughly reproduce the relation between mean stellar mass and halo mass inferred from abundance matching analysis. The resulting parameter settings have been tested on smaller-scale simulations and high-resolution zoom-in simulations of individual Milky Way-like haloes."
...unless the spurious claimant continues to assert that it's the real owner, in which case Google washes its hands and says you've got to find a lawyer, take them to court, and prove that your own work actually does belong to you.
Actually, their web site lists the Ukrainian patent numbers for their technique. Now, you can't just look that up online, but various other surveying firms from Eastern Europe - many of them with the same staff as Georesonance - have included images of the same patents in their presentations and web sites. They describe a form of remote sensing that is categorically bullshit. If you look up the names of some of the people involved with Georesonance's sister companies using the same patents, you will find them on sites like Linkedin describing a technology wholly consistent with those patents.
If the patents behind the technique are accurate, the "sensing instrument" is a print-out of satellite imagery that is then put in a bag with some blank film and subjected to abuse at a gamma-ray source. The previously-blank film is then developed.
Posting this to prevent me from exercising mod points on an article I submitted. That's just too much power for one person.
There's no technological barrier to ignoring robots.txt, yet Google, Yahoo and the rest obey the standard meticulously. Does this mean that my own right to privacy is given less regard than a web server's?
Don't worry, general relativity makes the laws of the universe equivalent for all reference frames again. Of course, then you're dealing with general relativity.
It really isn't. I'm no nuclear physicist but it seems that the reaction cross-sections change so dramatically with respect to the fine structure constant, that seeing these fission reactions at all puts a very strong bound on how the fine structure constant could have varied.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't eliminate the moral imperative for those nations that actually do want to act humanely.
They have some autonomy, but no more than barbed wire or a cloud of mustard gas, and we have legal frameworks for those sort of autonomous weapons. The autonomy at issue lately is in target acquisition. Ironically the sort of thing that previous autonomous weapons lacked - the ability to distinguish a target from a non-target - is exactly the thing that raises ethical questions.
The actual conspiracy theory is that it's five people at Freescale who are authors on a particular patent, and it's not true anyway, but it's funny to see how this one has mutated.
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
Reference audio isn't for everyone, and can be a bit flat when you have a lot of background noise. I'd suggest something like £20 on a pair of nice Sennheiser PX100s. Entry level price, but pleasingly and enthusiastically overcooked sound.
If you think that 256 kbps AAC is "compressed to hell" you probably have a place at Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters as some sort of bat-themed superhero.
It's a cosmological model, the Higgs doesn't enter into it. It's gravity and hydrodynamics.
The page states that they can only access information which is not encrypted, and is "active", whatever that means. Reading between the lines, it seems they can get at information that's currently in RAM.
Apparently not. It sounds like they're limited to whatever applications are currently running though:
Upon receipt of a valid search warrant, Apple can extract certain categories of active data from passcode locked iOS devices. Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. Apple can perform this data extraction process on iOS devices running iOS 4 or more recent versions of iOS. Please note the only categories of user generated active files that can be provided to law enforcement, pursuant to a valid search warrant, are: SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party App data.
And the lawmen.
Someone better track down the True Scotsman, he'll figure this out.
(Yes, I know what it means.)
The observations their model makes are different from the observations used to construct the model.
Their parameters aren't simply chosen, though: most of them come from a disparate range of experimental observations, and the remainder are constrained to reasonable values. Getting experiment out with experiment in, particularly when it's a range of different experiment types in each case, is strong evidence that a model is accurate.
"The free parameters of our model are set to physically plausible values and have been adjusted within the allowed range to roughly reproduce the relation between mean stellar mass and halo mass inferred from abundance matching analysis. The resulting parameter settings have been tested on smaller-scale simulations and high-resolution zoom-in simulations of individual Milky Way-like haloes."
...unless the spurious claimant continues to assert that it's the real owner, in which case Google washes its hands and says you've got to find a lawyer, take them to court, and prove that your own work actually does belong to you.
The ratio wasn't wrong. The research was provoked as a way of quantifying the possible variability given that it appears constant.
Actually, their web site lists the Ukrainian patent numbers for their technique. Now, you can't just look that up online, but various other surveying firms from Eastern Europe - many of them with the same staff as Georesonance - have included images of the same patents in their presentations and web sites. They describe a form of remote sensing that is categorically bullshit. If you look up the names of some of the people involved with Georesonance's sister companies using the same patents, you will find them on sites like Linkedin describing a technology wholly consistent with those patents.
Freedom means letting people do things you don't want them to do. I mean that's practically the definition.
If the patents behind the technique are accurate, the "sensing instrument" is a print-out of satellite imagery that is then put in a bag with some blank film and subjected to abuse at a gamma-ray source. The previously-blank film is then developed.
Posting this to prevent me from exercising mod points on an article I submitted. That's just too much power for one person.
Another word would just rise to replace it.
There's no technological barrier to ignoring robots.txt, yet Google, Yahoo and the rest obey the standard meticulously. Does this mean that my own right to privacy is given less regard than a web server's?
Don't worry, general relativity makes the laws of the universe equivalent for all reference frames again. Of course, then you're dealing with general relativity.
That point bears emphasising: in relativity, an accelerating object is distinct from the rest of the universe.
Are there areas where the "press freedom" rule trumps the laws that affect the ordinary public?
When it comes to space travel, technology that isn't decades-dead has a good chance of turning itself into a cloud of dust on the launch pad.
...and for that it's worth, the research takes into account site-to-site variability in the composition and the subsequent behaviour of the reactor.
It really isn't. I'm no nuclear physicist but it seems that the reaction cross-sections change so dramatically with respect to the fine structure constant, that seeing these fission reactions at all puts a very strong bound on how the fine structure constant could have varied.