Hinamatsuri seems to be on every top anime of the year list I see, it might be the objective champion of 2018. But while it was great, my favourite thing which crossed into this year was the second series of 3-gatsu no Lion.
Depends on what sorts of things you watch. The only things I saw this year which relate to earlier things (in the same medium) were the second series of 3-gatsu no Lion and the terrible new Doctor Who series. (Terrible because of its pacifism, dullness etc. not because of its characters who aren't white men, which disturbingly seems to be a problem for some here.) So... Hinamatsuri, Zombieland Saga, Gridman, Happy Sugar Life, Bunny, Chio, Mitsuboshi Colours, Revue Starlight, Beatless and Cells at Work, perhaps.
Doctor Who hasn't suddenly finished exploring the ideas available to it after 55 years. It's just got a crap lead writer now. Chibnall's scripts were bad when he was writing under RTD and Moffat, and they're bad now. He's only got the job because of Broadchurch, which is a completely different sort of show which says nothing for your ability to write weird sci-fi.
I think they do, they might not know what OS they're running or what the implications are, but they still want things to work a certain way. My mother is a pretty typical unsophisticated computer user of the type you instinctively think about when someone mentions their mother, she definitely wishes she were still running Windows 7 because Windows 10 keeps doing things she doesn't expect or want.
When did we start being more afraid of our own government than of terrorist?
You should always be more frightened of your government than of terrorists. All terrorists put together have only ever killed thousands of Westerners, unless you're in very unusual circumstances, your chances of being killed by a terrorist can be reasonably approximated as zero. Many Western governments don't really kill their own people, but occasionally, you can get one which will kill millions, so the chance of being killed by your government is substantially more than zero for everyone.
(Well, actually that doesn't apply everywhere, if you live somewhere like Pakistan, your chances of being killed by a terrorist become non-negligable.)
I would have thought, in the UK for example, this would violate the computer misuse act (Samsung were not authorised to install ad-displaying software by people) or the criminal damage act (a television which doesn't display what the user wanted to the same degree as before has been damaged). How do they get away with vandalising people's property like this? There's not even the "you have to copy our software to use our software in the way advertised, so sign an EULA" nonsense with a television.
Time to move the source code and the signing key to Germany.
Signing keys don't have to be kept in just one country. Secret-sharing schemes allow you to "split" them up into as many pieces as you like, which can all be stored in different countries, either requiring them all to agree to make a signature, or requiring a certain number of them to agree. Having an insufficient number of pieces is no better than having none at all.
It's exceptionally easy to determine the factors of any large prime number because there are only two; the number one the number itself.
But you don't know that it's prime until you've discovered its factors... (Specifically, that they don't include anything other than itself.)
And proving that a large prime number is in fact prime is actually quite hard. Fortunately, it's not too difficult to very nearly prove it. What actually happens in real-world large-prime crypto is that you run enough statistical tests on the number that the probability of it not being prime becomes lower than the probability of someone just guessing the key with pure luck, or is otherwise not the weakest link in the chain.
A good AI (outside of some sort of drama-like context imposing constraints on what works) should be configurable, to have as much or as little subservience as you want. That's what ownership means.Your computer should do whatever you want it to.
The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.
Not necessarily. Certainly if someone's paying for it, they're going to incentivise production. But at the other end, there's the situation where someone's downloading it off a server which isn't counting the number of downloads or isn't telling the provider, which is often going to be the case when, for example, it gets spammed onto third-party imageboards, in which case people viewing it aren't affecting the outside world in any way.
And consider. So downloading child porn off P2P services, which is a way of viewing such material, that increases the incentives to make it? Well, downloading copyrighted material off P2P services reduces the incentives to make it, as the copyright lobby loves telling us. These two things don't sound very consistent.
As Slashdot loves noticing, the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply to information when you have this almost infinitely efficient machine for copying it called the internet.
The SNP surge is irrelevant, since they're anti-Tory. (Except perhaps for the scare games it allowed the Tories to play.) If every SNP seat had been won by Labour, the Conservatives would still have a majority. And if Labour reached a point where they would have a majority if only they had those SNP seats, the Tories would be out of power because Labour and the SNP would certainly unite to block them, even if they weren't able to unite to do much else.
Do you think that if Air Force One was forced down by Bolivians who were seeking a dissident of theirs that the average American wouldn't care at all? I strongly suspect that the average Bolivian does actually care.
The new headline does actually convey strictly more information than the old one, since as well as conveying what the bank spokesman is saying, you can deduce from his criticism of "inappropriate" that it is not illegal, otherwise the criticism would be that it was illegal, or at least contain this information.
Porn isn't a problem in general, but a fair amount of porn is problematic, the "rapeyness" of some porn is normalising non-consensual sexual pratices amongst teenagers to a certain extent. It's probably a good idea to surreptitiously promote "responsible" porn to divert their attention away from the completely unfiltered mix of what's out there, but the methods for doing this aren't obvious.
You can be a good programmer without reference to assembly language by doing proper input validation, avoiding the impulse to be unnecessarily clever, commenting your code well, thinking about all the ways things can go wrong, checking for errors and handling them appropriately, designing sensible interfaces, writing tests, making sure you release resources you've finished with, avoiding clone and hack etc.
So when the poor fail to cross an additional hurdle of saving for something which shouldn't be necessary whilst not having enough money to feed themselves properly, which the wealthy don't need to worry about, or simply refuse to go through such unpleasantness in order to obeise themselves in front of the systems which oppress them, you accuse them of lacking self-discipline, and use that as an excuse to deny opportunity from them and keep participating in their oppression.
A perfect example of why suit culture is not just unpleasant, but is actively evil, and anyone ethical should help resist it.
I think the real key is that developers (in common with a few other groups of people like mathematicians) cannot get away with waffling and convincing some person that they're probably right about things. They have to actually get things precisely correct, or their code won't compile or will produce warnings etc. So ideas which depend on illusions, like suits being linked to professionalism, have a far harder time surviving in their culture, because everyone is in the habit of making sure things are right.
Slashdot Mirror
Hinamatsuri seems to be on every top anime of the year list I see, it might be the objective champion of 2018. But while it was great, my favourite thing which crossed into this year was the second series of 3-gatsu no Lion.
Depends on what sorts of things you watch. The only things I saw this year which relate to earlier things (in the same medium) were the second series of 3-gatsu no Lion and the terrible new Doctor Who series. (Terrible because of its pacifism, dullness etc. not because of its characters who aren't white men, which disturbingly seems to be a problem for some here.) So... Hinamatsuri, Zombieland Saga, Gridman, Happy Sugar Life, Bunny, Chio, Mitsuboshi Colours, Revue Starlight, Beatless and Cells at Work, perhaps.
Doctor Who hasn't suddenly finished exploring the ideas available to it after 55 years. It's just got a crap lead writer now. Chibnall's scripts were bad when he was writing under RTD and Moffat, and they're bad now. He's only got the job because of Broadchurch, which is a completely different sort of show which says nothing for your ability to write weird sci-fi.
I think they do, they might not know what OS they're running or what the implications are, but they still want things to work a certain way. My mother is a pretty typical unsophisticated computer user of the type you instinctively think about when someone mentions their mother, she definitely wishes she were still running Windows 7 because Windows 10 keeps doing things she doesn't expect or want.
You should always be more frightened of your government than of terrorists. All terrorists put together have only ever killed thousands of Westerners, unless you're in very unusual circumstances, your chances of being killed by a terrorist can be reasonably approximated as zero. Many Western governments don't really kill their own people, but occasionally, you can get one which will kill millions, so the chance of being killed by your government is substantially more than zero for everyone.
(Well, actually that doesn't apply everywhere, if you live somewhere like Pakistan, your chances of being killed by a terrorist become non-negligable.)
I want to know what happens if you report it to the police as a crime. (But not enough to fall victim to it myself so that I can.)
I would have thought, in the UK for example, this would violate the computer misuse act (Samsung were not authorised to install ad-displaying software by people) or the criminal damage act (a television which doesn't display what the user wanted to the same degree as before has been damaged). How do they get away with vandalising people's property like this? There's not even the "you have to copy our software to use our software in the way advertised, so sign an EULA" nonsense with a television.
Signing keys don't have to be kept in just one country. Secret-sharing schemes allow you to "split" them up into as many pieces as you like, which can all be stored in different countries, either requiring them all to agree to make a signature, or requiring a certain number of them to agree. Having an insufficient number of pieces is no better than having none at all.
But you don't know that it's prime until you've discovered its factors... (Specifically, that they don't include anything other than itself.)
And proving that a large prime number is in fact prime is actually quite hard. Fortunately, it's not too difficult to very nearly prove it. What actually happens in real-world large-prime crypto is that you run enough statistical tests on the number that the probability of it not being prime becomes lower than the probability of someone just guessing the key with pure luck, or is otherwise not the weakest link in the chain.
A good AI (outside of some sort of drama-like context imposing constraints on what works) should be configurable, to have as much or as little subservience as you want. That's what ownership means.Your computer should do whatever you want it to.
The grossly disproportionate punishments for possession?
Not necessarily. Certainly if someone's paying for it, they're going to incentivise production. But at the other end, there's the situation where someone's downloading it off a server which isn't counting the number of downloads or isn't telling the provider, which is often going to be the case when, for example, it gets spammed onto third-party imageboards, in which case people viewing it aren't affecting the outside world in any way.
And consider. So downloading child porn off P2P services, which is a way of viewing such material, that increases the incentives to make it? Well, downloading copyrighted material off P2P services reduces the incentives to make it, as the copyright lobby loves telling us. These two things don't sound very consistent.
As Slashdot loves noticing, the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply to information when you have this almost infinitely efficient machine for copying it called the internet.
It might require some payrises due to the recalculated hourly pay falling below minimum wage laws.
The SNP surge is irrelevant, since they're anti-Tory. (Except perhaps for the scare games it allowed the Tories to play.) If every SNP seat had been won by Labour, the Conservatives would still have a majority. And if Labour reached a point where they would have a majority if only they had those SNP seats, the Tories would be out of power because Labour and the SNP would certainly unite to block them, even if they weren't able to unite to do much else.
Do you think that if Air Force One was forced down by Bolivians who were seeking a dissident of theirs that the average American wouldn't care at all? I strongly suspect that the average Bolivian does actually care.
The new headline does actually convey strictly more information than the old one, since as well as conveying what the bank spokesman is saying, you can deduce from his criticism of "inappropriate" that it is not illegal, otherwise the criticism would be that it was illegal, or at least contain this information.
Small note: due to Google's policy of showing different people different search results, your first hit might not be their first hit.
Porn isn't a problem in general, but a fair amount of porn is problematic, the "rapeyness" of some porn is normalising non-consensual sexual pratices amongst teenagers to a certain extent. It's probably a good idea to surreptitiously promote "responsible" porn to divert their attention away from the completely unfiltered mix of what's out there, but the methods for doing this aren't obvious.
I would be flattered.
"Who defines it?" - the courts define it, whenever a case is put before them.
It's really more "the courts get to decide when government may do X", modulo cases needing to get to court and so forth.
You can be a good programmer without reference to assembly language by doing proper input validation, avoiding the impulse to be unnecessarily clever, commenting your code well, thinking about all the ways things can go wrong, checking for errors and handling them appropriately, designing sensible interfaces, writing tests, making sure you release resources you've finished with, avoiding clone and hack etc.
Doctor Who actually has equal numbers of male and female viewers, or at least it did the last time I checked.
So when the poor fail to cross an additional hurdle of saving for something which shouldn't be necessary whilst not having enough money to feed themselves properly, which the wealthy don't need to worry about, or simply refuse to go through such unpleasantness in order to obeise themselves in front of the systems which oppress them, you accuse them of lacking self-discipline, and use that as an excuse to deny opportunity from them and keep participating in their oppression.
A perfect example of why suit culture is not just unpleasant, but is actively evil, and anyone ethical should help resist it.
I think the real key is that developers (in common with a few other groups of people like mathematicians) cannot get away with waffling and convincing some person that they're probably right about things. They have to actually get things precisely correct, or their code won't compile or will produce warnings etc. So ideas which depend on illusions, like suits being linked to professionalism, have a far harder time surviving in their culture, because everyone is in the habit of making sure things are right.