>The billionaires are the ones who imagine stuff nobody else has, and then do it...
Sometimes they are just ideas that others thought of and completely wrote off as being ridiculous, or were ahead of the actual technology to make it possible.
> If it was illegal, why hasn't the justice department issued an indictment for Julian Assange?
I think it's very important to note that Wikileaks hasn't actually released anything that the New York Times hasn't *also* released, *with the same redaction*. And the New York Times has been working directly with the State Department.
Whatever crime that Assange could be indicted for, would also be a crime that editors of the NYT have committed in a conspiracy with the US State Department.
Have you, as a merchant, had PayPal freeze your account so that you cannot collect the money that's been paid to you? They have done that to people, with no good reason and sometimes with no explanation and no recourse available. That's "why the hate." As a consumer, you are unlikely to encounter problems with PayPal because there really aren't that many things that can go wrong. But as a merchant, you are at their mercy, and they have been known to do some pretty strange and seemingly random things.
>It is considered illegal in the United States to possess and release some of this information.
That may be true, but thus far nobody involved has been accused of any specific crime (setting aside the whole distraction of the rape charge.)
People have been assuming that actions taken against Wikileaks (by Amazon and Paypal) are on orders from government. There's no evidence for that assumption.
If possessing or distributing this information is a crime, what law is broken? Be specific please.
>Now Wikileaks has put a good guy's life in grave danger.
Somebody who could not keep a secret has put both the government official's AND the wikileaks guy in danger.
I'm not buying into the whole "kill the messenger" angle of this. Wikileaks and the New York Times have released the same documents with the same redaction, and the New York Times has been working with the State Department. But I don't see the same criticisms and actions against the Times.
My point was more that Modern AI has existed somewhat longer than Pac Man.
I'm not out of touch -- I do realize how much progress has been made in recent years, but it is definitely all on the shoulders of giants who managed to get us *very* far along without even having the benefit of actually using computers as we know them and take for granted. I find that quite amazing.
>Well, the behavior is complex in today's games, but the algorithms are not.
Study up on the path-finding, grouping, and line-of-sight algorithms in "today's games", before you lodge this kind of insult at their developers please.
But they *do* use that "numeric mumbo jumbo" as evidence, already. Juries are already instructed as to its acceptability. This is no hypothetical consideration.
Cost? We're talking about D-model Canons. They are breathtakingly expensive and that's just the barrier to entry so that you can use the even more breathtakingly expensive L-series lenses (which is the point of buying into the Canon system.)
This could be a very big deal, if you can use it to establish reasonable doubt. *Many* police agencies use Canon. The traffic light and speeding cameras in Arizona are Canons. Of course, at your trial they will use the whole "controlled chain of custody" argument to say the images could not have been tampered with and the signing will be irrelevant, but who knows?
>Sigh... Shaw Cable just cranks the volume of commercials up.
The good news is that in the digital domain, 0db is the threshold of clip. There's no "saturation" beyond 0db. You can push everything into the top four bits of dynamic range, but there's nowhere else to go.
This sounds like something that would benefit from a multiband compressor, which is sort of like an EQ before compression, but with a separate channel for each freq band so that you can control dynamics independently.
Once you have a general-purpose computer in the signal chain, effects like this become possible, if not trivial.
I'm not being hypothetical here. My TV sound and everything else I listen to goes through an instance of REAPER before it gets out.
Some people (like you and me, apparently) have great luck with cars that thrive on neglect. Other people seem to have a knack for getting cars that basically fall apart or blow up on them soon after driving off the lot.
Slashdot Mirror
If your worldview includes things like "the Laws of Thermodynamics" it is pretty reasonable to keep a filter against things outside it.
>The billionaires are the ones who imagine stuff nobody else has, and then do it...
Sometimes they are just ideas that others thought of and completely wrote off as being ridiculous, or were ahead of the actual technology to make it possible.
>the idea of having a language/tool be so intuitive that non-technical people could just write out what they wanted
This idea lives on in BPMN and XPDL. It doesn't work out any better.
> If it was illegal, why hasn't the justice department issued an indictment for Julian Assange?
I think it's very important to note that Wikileaks hasn't actually released anything that the New York Times hasn't *also* released, *with the same redaction*. And the New York Times has been working directly with the State Department.
Whatever crime that Assange could be indicted for, would also be a crime that editors of the NYT have committed in a conspiracy with the US State Department.
Have you, as a merchant, had PayPal freeze your account so that you cannot collect the money that's been paid to you? They have done that to people, with no good reason and sometimes with no explanation and no recourse available. That's "why the hate." As a consumer, you are unlikely to encounter problems with PayPal because there really aren't that many things that can go wrong. But as a merchant, you are at their mercy, and they have been known to do some pretty strange and seemingly random things.
That solution would also work wonderfully for any diplomat in foreign service who wants secure communications.
But since we are dealing with people who still refer to e-mail as "cables", I wonder how hard it would be to educate them.
>It is considered illegal in the United States to possess and release some of this information.
That may be true, but thus far nobody involved has been accused of any specific crime (setting aside the whole distraction of the rape charge.)
People have been assuming that actions taken against Wikileaks (by Amazon and Paypal) are on orders from government. There's no evidence for that assumption.
If possessing or distributing this information is a crime, what law is broken? Be specific please.
>Now Wikileaks has put a good guy's life in grave danger.
Somebody who could not keep a secret has put both the government official's AND the wikileaks guy in danger.
I'm not buying into the whole "kill the messenger" angle of this. Wikileaks and the New York Times have released the same documents with the same redaction, and the New York Times has been working with the State Department. But I don't see the same criticisms and actions against the Times.
Robert Anson Heinlein.
My point was more that Modern AI has existed somewhat longer than Pac Man.
I'm not out of touch -- I do realize how much progress has been made in recent years, but it is definitely all on the shoulders of giants who managed to get us *very* far along without even having the benefit of actually using computers as we know them and take for granted. I find that quite amazing.
It sounds like the kind of employer where having an ounce of Personality will disqualify you anyway. I have a hard time seeing the problem.
If you can't lie through a polygraph test you have no business working in a security role.
Wikileaks hasn't actually released anything that the New York Times hasn't also released, with precisely the same redactions.
So the message here is that reading the New York Times can potentially cost you a job.
What I'm trying to figure out is how a "potential employer" or whoever will know what I have and have not read.
What is sophisticated is the "less is more" minimalism involved.
I guess I could point out that we still use algorithms like A*, which was already mature and well-known at the time of the first Pac Man.
>Well, the behavior is complex in today's games, but the algorithms are not.
Study up on the path-finding, grouping, and line-of-sight algorithms in "today's games", before you lodge this kind of insult at their developers please.
But they *do* use that "numeric mumbo jumbo" as evidence, already. Juries are already instructed as to its acceptability. This is no hypothetical consideration.
Cost? We're talking about D-model Canons. They are breathtakingly expensive and that's just the barrier to entry so that you can use the even more breathtakingly expensive L-series lenses (which is the point of buying into the Canon system.)
This could be a very big deal, if you can use it to establish reasonable doubt. *Many* police agencies use Canon. The traffic light and speeding cameras in Arizona are Canons. Of course, at your trial they will use the whole "controlled chain of custody" argument to say the images could not have been tampered with and the signing will be irrelevant, but who knows?
>Sigh ... Shaw Cable just cranks the volume of commercials up.
The good news is that in the digital domain, 0db is the threshold of clip. There's no "saturation" beyond 0db. You can push everything into the top four bits of dynamic range, but there's nowhere else to go.
I'll grant you "popular", and maybe even "thought provoking." But I can count on one hand the shows and series that I would regret missing.
This sounds like something that would benefit from a multiband compressor, which is sort of like an EQ before compression, but with a separate channel for each freq band so that you can control dynamics independently.
Once you have a general-purpose computer in the signal chain, effects like this become possible, if not trivial.
I'm not being hypothetical here. My TV sound and everything else I listen to goes through an instance of REAPER before it gets out.
Put a master limiter on your main out. Problem solved. What? You mean everyone doesn't run their home entertainment through a DAW?
Some people (like you and me, apparently) have great luck with cars that thrive on neglect. Other people seem to have a knack for getting cars that basically fall apart or blow up on them soon after driving off the lot.