The problem is that security tends to be more of a human problem than a technical problem. A person can easily hide a usb stick somewhere on their person, and in the event that fails, take screenshots with a camera or write notes down. The first step is not to take away the usb stick, but to give the individual in question the training and incentive not to leak information in the first place. The training might include don't open any wierd attachments, browse to unauthorized sites, or use io devices from an unverified source. The incentives might include monitoring of sensitive material, legal repercussions, and, God-forbid, not implementing stupid policies that are morally questionable. Assenge noted in an interview that the purpose of Wikileaks wasn't to start a revolution but to make it easier for (morally)good companies to do business and to make it harder for (morally) bad companies to do business. The same could be said for government. Hire a trustworthy+competent staff don't be a jackass and you'll be less of a target, or at least implement fewer inane 'security' measures.
Your role is something like that of a shopkeeper. It would be rather unpleasant if your bandwidth got throttled and prevented you from connecting with customers. So you pay your protection fee... erm, access to the supercool higher tier internet for really 'fast' speeds.
Meanwhile, prominent republicans have close ties with Haliburton and nobody bats an eye. Nowadays, it's not surprising to see any political party tied to a corporation. My point is not that it's not wrong, but a tad hypocritical of the republicans to point fingers; but meh, this is politics. I think that the GPs post still stands: they're beholden to different corporate interests rather than corporate interests in general.
I think that depends on how it's implemented. If it provides a snapshot after hovering over the link, then ya, that could be a problem. If there's a separate icon, like the spyglass that has to be explicitly clicked to show preview, then it can be a nice feature by showing a thumbnail of the offending site rather than displaying it on a maximized browser screen.
Sorta. We have flat panel lcd screens which show color and motion video, but the battery life on these devices tends to be moderate at best. The promise of eink is to have a device that lasts about a week or two between charges due to a significantly lower power draw. I imagine that we'll start seeing these screens in many devices: smart phones, tablets, laptops, etc. There are a couple of emerging screen technologies that are leading in this direction: pixel qi's display and qualcomm's mirasol display. These technologies seem to be about 1-2 years away, which is nice for people who like to read a lot but get annoyed at excessive piles of books and papers.
Especially when the industry as a whole holds up comedy shows as their model for journalism. But hey, at least they have exciting twitter posts and excessively large touch-screen devices that barely work on air.
In this case, the owner of the content are deciding where/how they want it hosted versus net neutrality where ISPs can potentially act as the gate keepers to content and charge a toll for those accessing and those supplying content. The difference is that the latter prevents a neutral ground for competing or simply posting information up.
It sounds like the ai is trying to apply an overall strategy where several smaller strategies might make more sense. For instance, you could have ai's for goliaths, infantry, tanks, etc that could be coordinated by a larger, more general strategic ai. The only problem is that most ai's aren't structured as hierarchical models so you lose some of the nuances in using a unit correctly. I bet if you could design a more accurate learning model, it could have something akin to a strategy.
I actually like both for aesthetic reasons. If it's for leisure reading a book can be cheap and easy to pack away. If it's for art, having a giant-sized coffee book with glossy pictures is nice too. However, if it's for work, I find it's useful to have both. The computer can keep track of the pdfs I accumulate better (citations, sorting, categorization, searching, etc) while printed-out paper offers a nicer form-factor for writing notes and really digging into the text. I'm guess though, that I'll start using ereaders, as opposed to laptops, when the newer generation of devices comes out: lighter, with color, capacitive touch, and a very good battery life.
I imagine though, that this is how the apocalypse starts: we all convert to ereaders, and a galactic EMP knocks out all our electronic literature.
In fact, the airline in question had to remove all chairs from the plane, making it standing room only. Suffice to say, all of the passengers felt safer.
Just tried it out and holy jeebus is it fast. My only qualm however is that, when I know what I'm looking for, it's a little distracting watching all of the results flash by as I type. Almost seizure inducing. It's very cool, but it would be nice if I could control the refresh rate with finer granularity.
On another note, a quick refresh rate can pull up some non-professional images if one isn't careful. For instance in typing latent dirichlet, 'la' pulled up a partially clothed/nude image of lady gaga.This might have been a bit awkward if safe-search wasn't on.
In the court of law, stepping down may very well lead to an admittance of guilt, whether he's guilty or not. It may not seem like much to you, but the symbolism of the act may destroy his character, similar to how simply calling him a rapist or molester pretty much neutralizes his ability to find a safe harbor for wikileaks. Why do you think so many politicians being questioned 'don't recall' the details of an event they may very well have participated in. It's to avoid slipping up in some small way that may admit their guilt.
Meh, I've seen journal articles cite wikipedia. Usually it's for some odd, commonly accepted fact, where the original information was never published or so old, that digging up the original citation is a pain. Citing wikipedia is fine I think, as long as it's not the foundation of your argument/claim.
Ya, just wait until they start looking for messages in the song:
I'm not even angry...
I'm being so sincere right now-
Even though you broke my heart,
and killed me.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that security tends to be more of a human problem than a technical problem. A person can easily hide a usb stick somewhere on their person, and in the event that fails, take screenshots with a camera or write notes down. The first step is not to take away the usb stick, but to give the individual in question the training and incentive not to leak information in the first place. The training might include don't open any wierd attachments, browse to unauthorized sites, or use io devices from an unverified source. The incentives might include monitoring of sensitive material, legal repercussions, and, God-forbid, not implementing stupid policies that are morally questionable. Assenge noted in an interview that the purpose of Wikileaks wasn't to start a revolution but to make it easier for (morally)good companies to do business and to make it harder for (morally) bad companies to do business. The same could be said for government. Hire a trustworthy+competent staff don't be a jackass and you'll be less of a target, or at least implement fewer inane 'security' measures.
This is why we can't have plastic guns. It might be a bomb!
Your role is something like that of a shopkeeper. It would be rather unpleasant if your bandwidth got throttled and prevented you from connecting with customers. So you pay your protection fee ... erm, access to the supercool higher tier internet for really 'fast' speeds.
Don't forget microtransactions that provide nothing of value.
Meanwhile, prominent republicans have close ties with Haliburton and nobody bats an eye. Nowadays, it's not surprising to see any political party tied to a corporation. My point is not that it's not wrong, but a tad hypocritical of the republicans to point fingers; but meh, this is politics. I think that the GPs post still stands: they're beholden to different corporate interests rather than corporate interests in general.
I think that depends on how it's implemented. If it provides a snapshot after hovering over the link, then ya, that could be a problem. If there's a separate icon, like the spyglass that has to be explicitly clicked to show preview, then it can be a nice feature by showing a thumbnail of the offending site rather than displaying it on a maximized browser screen.
Sorta. We have flat panel lcd screens which show color and motion video, but the battery life on these devices tends to be moderate at best. The promise of eink is to have a device that lasts about a week or two between charges due to a significantly lower power draw. I imagine that we'll start seeing these screens in many devices: smart phones, tablets, laptops, etc. There are a couple of emerging screen technologies that are leading in this direction: pixel qi's display and qualcomm's mirasol display. These technologies seem to be about 1-2 years away, which is nice for people who like to read a lot but get annoyed at excessive piles of books and papers.
Is it me or is 2000$ kinda cheap to hire someone with the expertise required to extract out kinect's source?
Clearly they were intelligently designed.
I agree. That's why we should nominate Eric Schmidt/Larry Page for president.
Confirmed. It's pumpkin/jackolantern goatse, but goatse nonetheless.
Perhaps another argument for LAN?
At least then, the ethical cheaters who are just screwing around will segment themselves from the population.
Especially when the industry as a whole holds up comedy shows as their model for journalism. But hey, at least they have exciting twitter posts and excessively large touch-screen devices that barely work on air.
In this case, the owner of the content are deciding where/how they want it hosted versus net neutrality where ISPs can potentially act as the gate keepers to content and charge a toll for those accessing and those supplying content. The difference is that the latter prevents a neutral ground for competing or simply posting information up.
It sounds like the ai is trying to apply an overall strategy where several smaller strategies might make more sense. For instance, you could have ai's for goliaths, infantry, tanks, etc that could be coordinated by a larger, more general strategic ai. The only problem is that most ai's aren't structured as hierarchical models so you lose some of the nuances in using a unit correctly. I bet if you could design a more accurate learning model, it could have something akin to a strategy.
I actually like both for aesthetic reasons. If it's for leisure reading a book can be cheap and easy to pack away. If it's for art, having a giant-sized coffee book with glossy pictures is nice too. However, if it's for work, I find it's useful to have both. The computer can keep track of the pdfs I accumulate better (citations, sorting, categorization, searching, etc) while printed-out paper offers a nicer form-factor for writing notes and really digging into the text. I'm guess though, that I'll start using ereaders, as opposed to laptops, when the newer generation of devices comes out: lighter, with color, capacitive touch, and a very good battery life.
I imagine though, that this is how the apocalypse starts: we all convert to ereaders, and a galactic EMP knocks out all our electronic literature.
You could always wear those 3d glasses and blink one eye at a time to see which side the units belong to :D.
Plus if you want speed and safety, having redundant, mirrored copies of data can be useful.
In fact, the airline in question had to remove all chairs from the plane, making it standing room only. Suffice to say, all of the passengers felt safer.
Just tried it out and holy jeebus is it fast. My only qualm however is that, when I know what I'm looking for, it's a little distracting watching all of the results flash by as I type. Almost seizure inducing. It's very cool, but it would be nice if I could control the refresh rate with finer granularity.
On another note, a quick refresh rate can pull up some non-professional images if one isn't careful. For instance in typing latent dirichlet, 'la' pulled up a partially clothed/nude image of lady gaga.This might have been a bit awkward if safe-search wasn't on.
In the court of law, stepping down may very well lead to an admittance of guilt, whether he's guilty or not. It may not seem like much to you, but the symbolism of the act may destroy his character, similar to how simply calling him a rapist or molester pretty much neutralizes his ability to find a safe harbor for wikileaks. Why do you think so many politicians being questioned 'don't recall' the details of an event they may very well have participated in. It's to avoid slipping up in some small way that may admit their guilt.
and suffering leads to the dark side.
Meh, I've seen journal articles cite wikipedia. Usually it's for some odd, commonly accepted fact, where the original information was never published or so old, that digging up the original citation is a pain. Citing wikipedia is fine I think, as long as it's not the foundation of your argument/claim.
What's to stop a large conglomerate, then, from creating 11 shadow companies and 'independently' discovering the invention?
Ya, just wait until they start looking for messages in the song:
I'm not even angry...
I'm being so sincere right now-
Even though you broke my heart,
and killed me.