Eh? The bracing normal humans use when punching is the push of our foot into the ground. If this suit is as physiologically advanced as it seems, it can very well do the same thing.
His argument is only valid for certain cases, where damage done can be spread out over the course of days or weeks. Sometimes the majority of damage/benefit derived can be derived within minutes or hours. Example: access to a victim's email account (to mine contact list or to spam or to impersonate) or access to a bank account, in which a sizable transfer can be done immediately.
Most CS students can write code, though some may be of poor quality. But as with any open-ended endeavor, coding requires a bit of creativity and some artistic touch to get a good result. It's hard to teach this in a classroom setting. Plus, the core of computer science has very little to do with coding anyway. Coding is a way of applying the knowledge, almost similar to the difference between Physics and Applied Physics.
I'd argue that trackers and version control should not be taught in a CS curriculum. Let that be taught in specialized degrees, like software engineering or something. Not all CS students need to know how to use those, and it distracts some away from the core principles of CS to focus on these.
Why is this marked insightful? This comparison misses so many points. Firstly, shoplifting takes significantly more work than sitting at home and double clicking a song name. When you shoplift, there's more danger of getting caught (or at least perceived). When you shoplift, you are stealing something tangible in the primary definition of the word. When you P2P online, you also make your downloaded music available for upload. Indeed, it's usually the upload they've got more reason to sue you for than the download, because the upload supposedly deprives them of potential sales to the parties you're uploading to.
Without doing further research, my impression of that sentence is that the law sets a range for the damages. The judge is to award damages, within the range, as he interprets severity. For him, probably the most heinous violations deserve the upper ranges and the case in question was not (for him) a heinous violation.
The most interesting part, for those of us who read the article, is:
But earlier this year, the judge found that amount to be "monstrous and shocking" and reduced the amount to $54,000. Following that, the RIAA informed Thomas-Rasset that it would accept $25,000--less than half of the court-reduced award--if she agreed to ask the judge to "vacate" his decision, which means removing his decision from the record. Thomas-Rasset rejected that offer almost immediately.
RIAA is scared their tactics will no longer work. When faced with more reasonable verdicts, their defendants are probably more likely to fight it out in court, making RIAA's whole business litigation plan useless.
False. You can bill the "option of restriction" as freedom, but that's simply not what it is. No closed system has ever been perfect. There's a website where you can just jailbreak an iPhone from the built in browser. That vector of attack is still there. In addition the phone's owner can't even install things that they WANT (which are not considered "attacks").
It's kind of like taking a stance. Just because Staples refuses to sell malware from their stores doesn't mean all stores have to. But is Staples going to ever carry malware? No, because the inherent risk of abuse is too high.
Eh that is, I'd be more concerned if it were banned on Apple Stores, because on that, there's NO way to get the app even if you as phone owner personally approve.
Yes indeed. I am much less concerned about this decision than I would if this happened on App Stores. I think Google's point is that they don't want a stalker to sneak 2 minutes on a target's phone while they're going to the bathroom and install the app easily from the Android App Store.
Parent post is obviously wrong, but your explanation is lacking as well. Diameter is not 2 dimensions. The cross section would have two dimensions. If one of them is the radius/diameter, the other is the angle.
Gravity/mass isn't created. It exists and it's being made to behave like it exists (the mass presumably comes from the electrons). Plus they haven't discussed the input energy required to "compactify".
Seems like they've made the calculations, but there's nothing that claims they've come up with a method to compactify the graphene. Otherwise they would have reproduced it and observed the effects already.
There's in interview in the NYT with Obama where he claims that some of his work wasn't very effective because he didn't put enough of a PR focus on it. This seems like a good effort to correct a perceived shortcoming. That's the kind of person I want in office.
In that case either you're misreading my post or I was misreading yours. Nowhere in my post did I mention getting rid of sugar or salt. I mentioned they were GOOD because they were hard to come by. The amount consumed is the key difference. We consume nowadays more than we need, and it's certainly unnatural. Your post argued none of my claims if you read it correctly.
Exactly. There's so many times I drink tea and can appreciate the flavors. Or I eat a tomato and think, "damn that's good". But then my friends will be on the side drinking bubble tea and dipping their tomatoes in sugar.
Good luck finding sugar to dip your tomatoes in out in nature...
That's a good point. But unfortunately they are orthogonal concepts. Both proper nutrition and exercise are necessary for health, but proper nutrition is more so. Taken to the extreme, do you think you can just a wedding cake a day and exercising 24/7 will do anything substantial for you?
Food are the nutrients you get as inputs. Exercise controls how your body responds to these inputs, adjusting your body composition, etc. to the needs of the exercise. But no matter how much exercise you do, if you don't have proper nutrition worked out, your output is not going to look good.
I have no problem with pepper, thyme, spices, etc. But then there was no huge advantage to eating more of that so we usually don't have a huge craving for that.
Yea I'm not saying don't use salt or sugar. I'm saying don't drown your food in it. Show me a jar of salt in the wild or a packet of pure sugar. Those animals like salt licks because salt licks aren't common. They get whatever they can of it because in general these are essential nutrients they don't get enough of. Are you saying the majority of us eat so much salt and sugar and fat because we're malnourished in them?
Synesthesia is a fairly well understood defect in the brain. It seems they took a normal sample of people. It's only synesthesia if only a small population of people have it. If everyone is supposed to have it, it wouldn't be a defect.
I'd argue for just having a couple of unnatural items on the table for the fatties/people with health conditions, give us NATURAL food.
Seriously, where else in nature can you find "seasoning"? Foods seasoned with sugar or salt are only good because they used to be hard to come by. Finding a couple packets of sugar lying around is equivalent calorically to climbing a tree and picking an apple. They only taste good because in scarcity, they should be valued. In an environment of abundance these triggers evolved to make us fat and crave an unbalanced diet. Let me eat what I was evolved to eat, damnit!
Are they waking up to it? Most vendors aren't blatantly obvious in doing these seeding things. It will take a real case for FSF or anybody to really be able to highlight the benefits of Free.
Additionally this is good news for smaller manufacturers who don't care or don't have the ability to add additional "services" to their products that shouldn't really be there to begin with. If this endorsement gains any momentum, that's yet another incentive to do business the simple, straightforward way.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh? The bracing normal humans use when punching is the push of our foot into the ground. If this suit is as physiologically advanced as it seems, it can very well do the same thing.
The "ironman" part of that equation is much easier to produce than the "- man" part of it.
His argument is only valid for certain cases, where damage done can be spread out over the course of days or weeks. Sometimes the majority of damage/benefit derived can be derived within minutes or hours. Example: access to a victim's email account (to mine contact list or to spam or to impersonate) or access to a bank account, in which a sizable transfer can be done immediately.
Most CS students can write code, though some may be of poor quality. But as with any open-ended endeavor, coding requires a bit of creativity and some artistic touch to get a good result. It's hard to teach this in a classroom setting. Plus, the core of computer science has very little to do with coding anyway. Coding is a way of applying the knowledge, almost similar to the difference between Physics and Applied Physics.
I'd argue that trackers and version control should not be taught in a CS curriculum. Let that be taught in specialized degrees, like software engineering or something. Not all CS students need to know how to use those, and it distracts some away from the core principles of CS to focus on these.
To be fair, most recursive algorithms have a base case. So:
To understand recursion you must first understand recursion, unless you already understand recursion.
Why is this marked insightful? This comparison misses so many points. Firstly, shoplifting takes significantly more work than sitting at home and double clicking a song name. When you shoplift, there's more danger of getting caught (or at least perceived). When you shoplift, you are stealing something tangible in the primary definition of the word. When you P2P online, you also make your downloaded music available for upload. Indeed, it's usually the upload they've got more reason to sue you for than the download, because the upload supposedly deprives them of potential sales to the parties you're uploading to.
Without doing further research, my impression of that sentence is that the law sets a range for the damages. The judge is to award damages, within the range, as he interprets severity. For him, probably the most heinous violations deserve the upper ranges and the case in question was not (for him) a heinous violation.
The most interesting part, for those of us who read the article, is:
But earlier this year, the judge found that amount to be "monstrous and shocking" and reduced the amount to $54,000. Following that, the RIAA informed Thomas-Rasset that it would accept $25,000--less than half of the court-reduced award--if she agreed to ask the judge to "vacate" his decision, which means removing his decision from the record. Thomas-Rasset rejected that offer almost immediately.
RIAA is scared their tactics will no longer work. When faced with more reasonable verdicts, their defendants are probably more likely to fight it out in court, making RIAA's whole business litigation plan useless.
False. You can bill the "option of restriction" as freedom, but that's simply not what it is. No closed system has ever been perfect. There's a website where you can just jailbreak an iPhone from the built in browser. That vector of attack is still there. In addition the phone's owner can't even install things that they WANT (which are not considered "attacks").
It's kind of like taking a stance. Just because Staples refuses to sell malware from their stores doesn't mean all stores have to. But is Staples going to ever carry malware? No, because the inherent risk of abuse is too high.
Yes because the store can distinguish who is a wife/husband of the phone's owner. No stalker would ever want to abuse this.
Eh that is, I'd be more concerned if it were banned on Apple Stores, because on that, there's NO way to get the app even if you as phone owner personally approve.
Yes indeed. I am much less concerned about this decision than I would if this happened on App Stores. I think Google's point is that they don't want a stalker to sneak 2 minutes on a target's phone while they're going to the bathroom and install the app easily from the Android App Store.
Parent post is obviously wrong, but your explanation is lacking as well. Diameter is not 2 dimensions. The cross section would have two dimensions. If one of them is the radius/diameter, the other is the angle.
Gravity/mass isn't created. It exists and it's being made to behave like it exists (the mass presumably comes from the electrons). Plus they haven't discussed the input energy required to "compactify".
Seems like they've made the calculations, but there's nothing that claims they've come up with a method to compactify the graphene. Otherwise they would have reproduced it and observed the effects already.
There's in interview in the NYT with Obama where he claims that some of his work wasn't very effective because he didn't put enough of a PR focus on it. This seems like a good effort to correct a perceived shortcoming. That's the kind of person I want in office.
In that case either you're misreading my post or I was misreading yours. Nowhere in my post did I mention getting rid of sugar or salt. I mentioned they were GOOD because they were hard to come by. The amount consumed is the key difference. We consume nowadays more than we need, and it's certainly unnatural. Your post argued none of my claims if you read it correctly.
Exactly. There's so many times I drink tea and can appreciate the flavors. Or I eat a tomato and think, "damn that's good". But then my friends will be on the side drinking bubble tea and dipping their tomatoes in sugar.
Good luck finding sugar to dip your tomatoes in out in nature...
That's a good point. But unfortunately they are orthogonal concepts. Both proper nutrition and exercise are necessary for health, but proper nutrition is more so. Taken to the extreme, do you think you can just a wedding cake a day and exercising 24/7 will do anything substantial for you?
Food are the nutrients you get as inputs. Exercise controls how your body responds to these inputs, adjusting your body composition, etc. to the needs of the exercise. But no matter how much exercise you do, if you don't have proper nutrition worked out, your output is not going to look good.
I have no problem with pepper, thyme, spices, etc. But then there was no huge advantage to eating more of that so we usually don't have a huge craving for that.
Yea I'm not saying don't use salt or sugar. I'm saying don't drown your food in it. Show me a jar of salt in the wild or a packet of pure sugar. Those animals like salt licks because salt licks aren't common. They get whatever they can of it because in general these are essential nutrients they don't get enough of. Are you saying the majority of us eat so much salt and sugar and fat because we're malnourished in them?
About as much sense as me controlling how they spend my subscription fee, to ensure that all providers don't try to mess with their users.
Synesthesia is a fairly well understood defect in the brain. It seems they took a normal sample of people. It's only synesthesia if only a small population of people have it. If everyone is supposed to have it, it wouldn't be a defect.
I'd argue for just having a couple of unnatural items on the table for the fatties/people with health conditions, give us NATURAL food.
Seriously, where else in nature can you find "seasoning"? Foods seasoned with sugar or salt are only good because they used to be hard to come by. Finding a couple packets of sugar lying around is equivalent calorically to climbing a tree and picking an apple. They only taste good because in scarcity, they should be valued. In an environment of abundance these triggers evolved to make us fat and crave an unbalanced diet. Let me eat what I was evolved to eat, damnit!
Are they waking up to it? Most vendors aren't blatantly obvious in doing these seeding things. It will take a real case for FSF or anybody to really be able to highlight the benefits of Free.
Additionally this is good news for smaller manufacturers who don't care or don't have the ability to add additional "services" to their products that shouldn't really be there to begin with. If this endorsement gains any momentum, that's yet another incentive to do business the simple, straightforward way.