I like recent holographic theories as candidates for ultimately supplying a workable GUT. Consider cosmic expansion - what happens to the surface area of a sphere as the radius of the sphere increases arithmetically? Gravity can be readily explained as perturbations on the surface of the sphere. I wish I knew the maths to explore this idea properly.
One of the powers traditionally reserved to governments is the ability to mint and coin legal tender - lucre, coin of the realm, payola, greenbacks, cash . . . money.
I've been able to write checks throughout my adult life. Bitcoin (no matter the technical underpinnings) is more like issuing drafts (checks) - their value is not defined by any reasonable currency; the reverse however is true (bitcoin has an arbitrary or not-so-arbitrary value in currency, but the value of the US Dollar/British Pound/Euro/etc. is not defined as having value relative to bitcoin).
Is anybody here still naive enough to confuse my (personal crypto) check for cash? I assert that the check in my hand is worth $100.00 - who'll give me $95.00 for it? I promise it's good . . .
Not going to happen with proprietary hardware. You'll need opensource hardware for the job - otherwise I can guarantee the presence of (one or more) "escrow" technologies at government insistence.
So . . . whaddya suppose the odds are any auto manufacturer is going to base the vehicle's fundamental operations on an open source hardware/software stack?
He has still thwarted this particular data collection exploit without losing any of the functionality he paid for. He just chose to disable the data source rather than attempting to interrupt the factory's data feed (which is actually the more desirable of two methods in this particular instance, I think).
Amazon - sending you stuff in the mail. You claim you didn't order it? You don't have to pay for it. Amazon has to give you your money back if they can't prove their end of the transaction, so the credit card company gives you back your money and dukes it out with Amazon in court.
Those other guys - somebody runs up to 'em with a subpoena and says "Who did what from where when?" It'd sure be nice if I could keep a straight face when I let them into my database - something about staying out of Club Fed . ..
What, you thought they were using your password for your protection?
Uh, you misinterpreted his post. You're off by 180 degrees. I get the impression that these institutions impose a maximum key length of ten characters, not a minimum.
Oh, and . . . no. I don't have any formal training or education in any of the cognitive sciences. I'm a computer geek.
But I still agree wholeheartedly with your post. I still am curious - ever had the overpowering sense of sentience when dealing with a "lower animal"? Maybe I'm just being anthropomorphic.
If I have that right, I'd just like to ask you a direct question. Ever look an elephant in the eye? I have and I get the distinct impression that something in there is looking back at me and thinking.
Purely a subjective observation - but I don't get that same sense from dogs (who are undeniably intelligent on some level), birds, cats, fish. Chimps and Great Apes, yes. Lions and tigers and bears - not so much. Elephants - yes, it's unscientific but I can't help the feeling that someone is in there looking back at me.
On the other hand, they may be more intelligent than we'd previously thought, or at least possess abilities we've previously overlooked. It may not take a brain the size and configuration of ours to have a circuit capable of discriminating or parsing speech. Conceivably, such an organelle of the elephant brain need not even (grossly) resemble its analog in the human brain. Think of it as A/D on two different chip architectures - they may perform equivalent functions in entirely dissimilar ways, even though both are implemented using the same underlying chip manufacturing techniques.
The Indian interest of making a few billion dollars.
Y'know, next they'll be suing the "Big Three" US auto manufacturers for unfairly competing against the Tata, claiming that they incorporate all sorts of desirable stuff that Tata can't afford to put in their cheap little piss-pot cars and that they're being unfairly competitive in the world market by not letting Tata compete in the luxury car area. Sounds anti-competitive to me.
Another reminder - he threatened an FBI agent and his family, he demonstrated the ability to carry out his threats by showing that he knew their home address. Why should he be allowed to communicate, so that he can arrange the murder which he can no longer personally commit?
Besides, he's not being held incommunicado. His attorney has access and if he wants to release a lawful (i.e., not threatening to harm people) statement, he can do so via his attorney. He just can't order a hit (in this case, a surprisingly real concern).
The part where he threatened an FBI agent and his family with bodily harm might have something to do with that. Wouldn't want him contacting someone and arranging a murder now, would we?
(And, no - that's not melodramatic. Really. There are at least THREE people who are probably overjoyed that the man who is threatening their lives is being sequestered from society. That's what you get for threatening to do something heinous.)
Slashdot Mirror
"--- You must be this intelligent to ride the internet."
I like recent holographic theories as candidates for ultimately supplying a workable GUT. Consider cosmic expansion - what happens to the surface area of a sphere as the radius of the sphere increases arithmetically? Gravity can be readily explained as perturbations on the surface of the sphere. I wish I knew the maths to explore this idea properly.
I believe in Intelligent Design. Everything I've ever designed, I've tried to do so intelligently.
No data connectivity - took that long to get to the anchor desk. Sorry 'bout that!
I've been able to write checks throughout my adult life. Bitcoin (no matter the technical underpinnings) is more like issuing drafts (checks) - their value is not defined by any reasonable currency; the reverse however is true (bitcoin has an arbitrary or not-so-arbitrary value in currency, but the value of the US Dollar/British Pound/Euro/etc. is not defined as having value relative to bitcoin).
Is anybody here still naive enough to confuse my (personal crypto) check for cash? I assert that the check in my hand is worth $100.00 - who'll give me $95.00 for it? I promise it's good . . .
Have fun seizing cryptocoin - it's actively designed to resist that, y'know.
Yeah, but is it speeding? Oh, and was it out by the [insert clandestine destination here]?
So . . . whaddya suppose the odds are any auto manufacturer is going to base the vehicle's fundamental operations on an open source hardware/software stack?
He has still thwarted this particular data collection exploit without losing any of the functionality he paid for. He just chose to disable the data source rather than attempting to interrupt the factory's data feed (which is actually the more desirable of two methods in this particular instance, I think).
Those other guys - somebody runs up to 'em with a subpoena and says "Who did what from where when?" It'd sure be nice if I could keep a straight face when I let them into my database - something about staying out of Club Fed . . .
What, you thought they were using your password for your protection?
So you're actively trying to get yourself arrested?
Almost - it's gone to "steal lots of passwords - this (hopefully harder) one first."
My apologies if I'm wrong . . .
But I still agree wholeheartedly with your post. I still am curious - ever had the overpowering sense of sentience when dealing with a "lower animal"? Maybe I'm just being anthropomorphic.
Purely a subjective observation - but I don't get that same sense from dogs (who are undeniably intelligent on some level), birds, cats, fish. Chimps and Great Apes, yes. Lions and tigers and bears - not so much. Elephants - yes, it's unscientific but I can't help the feeling that someone is in there looking back at me.
On the other hand, they may be more intelligent than we'd previously thought, or at least possess abilities we've previously overlooked. It may not take a brain the size and configuration of ours to have a circuit capable of discriminating or parsing speech. Conceivably, such an organelle of the elephant brain need not even (grossly) resemble its analog in the human brain. Think of it as A/D on two different chip architectures - they may perform equivalent functions in entirely dissimilar ways, even though both are implemented using the same underlying chip manufacturing techniques.
But hey - give me your address. I have a Charter Arms revolver I'd like to show you.
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
Y'know, next they'll be suing the "Big Three" US auto manufacturers for unfairly competing against the Tata, claiming that they incorporate all sorts of desirable stuff that Tata can't afford to put in their cheap little piss-pot cars and that they're being unfairly competitive in the world market by not letting Tata compete in the luxury car area. Sounds anti-competitive to me.
No - more like holding a gun on a security guard while the other guys rob the bank.
Besides, he's not being held incommunicado. His attorney has access and if he wants to release a lawful (i.e., not threatening to harm people) statement, he can do so via his attorney. He just can't order a hit (in this case, a surprisingly real concern).
Yeah - 'cuz nobody should go to prison for threatening three innocent people.
Because the guy that's locked up in this case Threatened an FBI agent and his family with harm . A CREDIBLE threat, BTW.
Do the people he threatened with murder have rights?
(And, no - that's not melodramatic. Really. There are at least THREE people who are probably overjoyed that the man who is threatening their lives is being sequestered from society. That's what you get for threatening to do something heinous.)