So they finally cannot tap into the conversations anymore?
Wow.
Now, if only they can force Facebook and Google into becoming official telcos. I mean, what is the difference between sending a text message on a phone to a bunch of friends, and sharing something with a restricted group of friends on Facebook?
Nah, this technology will first be used by a slashdotter. The virus will be targeted at males that don't match his specific DNA profile. When the virus is done, he will be the only man midst of three billion women! At last!! Muhahahaha.
Indeed. For example, interestingly, the standard template library (STL) used in many C++ projects is actually a move away from object orientation.
Anyway, I just had a peek at some sample LiveCode source, and noticed that sometimes it approaches human language. For example: delete the last char of tFilesWithPaths
So, perhaps LiveCode is a move back towards the COBOL days?
Or they just use some sort of EM device tracker to find the bugs and remove them.
Perhaps they should use satellite images to locate these fellers. When the images between today and yesterday are significantly different in an area, you know that something is going on, and you might want to have a look there. This way, you force fellers to be quick and to operate in larger areas, which may make their business unprofitable, or at least less attractive.
Slightly offtopic, but I'm wondering. According to the European data protection law, every individual has the right to get a copy of all personal data a company holds about him or her. This was in the news some time ago regarding Facebook. Any user can order a CD with all information being stored about him or her. Does this law also apply to Google? And if so, has anybody yet attempted to retrieve this information?
while "denialists" tend to argue that these positive feedback loops are counteracted by negative feedback loops that tend to keep the temperature within a reasonable range.
Well, then these "denialists" should come with a sound proof for that statement, I would say. The "alarmists" have done their work.
What I would suggest is the following. Currently, the USPTO gets paid for every patent which they validate. This is so obviously perverse that it actually hurts. Now instead of letting that money flow into the hands of the USPTO, it should go somewhere else, perhaps it should go into education. This, imho, would already be a huge improvement.
Let's take it one step further. Let the patent office PAY for each patent they validate. A second government could then pay them back based on the societal impact of the patents they approved (measured, say, 5 years after validation).
Thus, with this two-tier model, lack of societal impact means a loss for the USPTO.
This means that, under this model, the USPTO will not so easily approve simple things such as "one click shopping" because they might lose on it on account of a lack of social impact. Similarly, patent trolling will be actively barred by the patent office (no product means no social impact). However, a patent for a new medicine may be approved.
Slashdot Mirror
So they finally cannot tap into the conversations anymore?
Wow.
Now, if only they can force Facebook and Google into becoming official telcos. I mean, what is the difference between sending a text message on a phone to a bunch of friends, and sharing something with a restricted group of friends on Facebook?
And how is this more shocking than "symbiosis", a kind of mechanism that was probably discovered back in the days of Darwin.
Nah, this technology will first be used by a slashdotter. The virus will be targeted at males that don't match his specific DNA profile. When the virus is done, he will be the only man midst of three billion women! At last!! Muhahahaha.
If the project was desired it should have been able to get funded on it's own. To force it on an unrelated project to me seems dishonest.
Well, then how, for example, would Google be able to create and sustain gmail and youtube, without funding from their search activities?
So physics is actually close to psychology, and not really a hard science.
A black 1982 Pontiac Trans Am.
You can still use Presto. Just put the following in your document head:
<meta render-engine="https://www.opera.com/developer/tools/presto-12.14.bin" />
Ok, that was a joke. Would be cool, though.
They ended up higher on Google's search results?
Well surprise! News at 11, search engine demotes major competitor in its results lists.
Perhaps you need to log in first?
Does it also crash your browser if you click this link?
click here please
Indeed. For example, interestingly, the standard template library (STL) used in many C++ projects is actually a move away from object orientation.
Anyway, I just had a peek at some sample LiveCode source, and noticed that sometimes it approaches human language. For example:
delete the last char of tFilesWithPaths
So, perhaps LiveCode is a move back towards the COBOL days?
Those extreme yogurt places [...]
Different field. Has nothing to do with computers.
I guess, for these companies, a sales ban is worse than a fine.
Indeed. The web should have been low level virtual machine combined with low level (opengl) graphics.
Instead, they (w3c or whoever) decided that the web should be programmable by novices, so they made HTML and it sucked for real software engineers.
Of course, the increase in speed from other galaxies is caused by aliens who are trying to fool us so that we don't develop superior knowledge.
In physics, if you have two explanations for a problem, choose the simplest one. If you have only one, well, that must be it.
Or they just use some sort of EM device tracker to find the bugs and remove them.
Perhaps they should use satellite images to locate these fellers. When the images between today and yesterday are significantly different in an area, you know that something is going on, and you might want to have a look there. This way, you force fellers to be quick and to operate in larger areas, which may make their business unprofitable, or at least less attractive.
What I don't understand, is that they are not *required* to open up their protocol already.
I mean, other telephone companies can't get away with locking-in their customers, so why can Skype?
The only difference between the two is of technical nature, and I don't think judges are sensitive to this kind of distinction (as they should).
Indeed. Didn't they learn ANYTHING from Apple?
a new analysis by three microbiologists
Men or women?
If you're infrastructure (beyond just computers) is capable of being hacked then you're not designing your infrastructure properly
Yes, but what if your CAD software gets hacked?
Interesting. But actually, I was asking specifically about Google.
Slightly offtopic, but I'm wondering. According to the European data protection law, every individual has the right to get a copy of all personal data a company holds about him or her. This was in the news some time ago regarding Facebook. Any user can order a CD with all information being stored about him or her. Does this law also apply to Google? And if so, has anybody yet attempted to retrieve this information?
Can bad grammar really make your password secure?
not any longer.
while "denialists" tend to argue that these positive feedback loops are counteracted by negative feedback loops that tend to keep the temperature within a reasonable range.
Well, then these "denialists" should come with a sound proof for that statement, I would say. The "alarmists" have done their work.
What I would suggest is the following. Currently, the USPTO gets paid for every patent which they validate. This is so obviously perverse that it actually hurts.
Now instead of letting that money flow into the hands of the USPTO, it should go somewhere else, perhaps it should go into education.
This, imho, would already be a huge improvement.
Let's take it one step further. Let the patent office PAY for each patent they validate. A second government could then pay them back based on the societal impact of the patents they approved (measured, say, 5 years after validation).
Thus, with this two-tier model, lack of societal impact means a loss for the USPTO.
This means that, under this model, the USPTO will not so easily approve simple things such as "one click shopping" because they might lose on it on account of a lack of social impact. Similarly, patent trolling will be actively barred by the patent office (no product means no social impact). However, a patent for a new medicine may be approved.