I'm not an astronomer, and I am completely at a loss for what all these acronyms actually say, other than speculating that it has something to do with processing radio-telescope data...
Don't know - but it doesn't need to be 0 to be reliable. The genome is quite resistant to random mutation, having been subjected to it for all its existence.
The final estimate is 99.999%, presumably including some redundancy or error checking.
This is still one error in 100,000 base pairs, which is tens of thousands of errors in the 3 billion pairs of the human genome.
Of course, we're not talking about computer code here - this code has withstood (or rather adapted to) millions of years of inaccurate copying. Most of the errors would probably hit the vast majority of inactive areas, or be compensated by the natural redundancy mechanisms.
The question whether "victimless" (artificial) pornography is judged as criminal is only just beginning to become relevant.
There are several ways to look at that - the question of whether the spirit of the law tries to outlaw "child abuse" or "media that encourage or describe child abuse". On one hand, mere possession of these media is prosecuted (suggesting the latter) - on the other hand, Nabokov's Lolita is freely available. Right now, the distinction is easy: Lolita does not really exist, the abuse victims do.
However, we can expect the distinction to become increasingly blurry with technological progress of virtual reality. Computers can already render faces that look human. In ten or twenty years, it will be a very real question where the burden of proof is to lie: Should the prosecution have to prove child abuse (as criminal law normally demands)? Or should owners or producers of such images have to prove it is an artificially rendered image (on the side of caution)? Or should the content, real or artificial, be banned completely because, well, "ew, you sicko"?
Don't get me wrong, freedom of expression is important. But so is the safety of children. This is not just some nanny-state legislature about whether the word "fuck" can be said in public.
The collection will include top-secret e-mail tracing plans for the Iraq war as well as scenes from the likes of Barney Cam 2008, a White House video featuring the first pet.
The swamp of data will have to be severely redacted to fit into the archives. I guess that the records of secret renditions and pre-war Iraq intelligence have to go to make way for the pet video.
I AM [PRIME MINISTER OF KINGDOM OF THAILAND]. I HAVE BUSINESS PROPOSITION TO MAKE YOU. Have URGENT POLITICAL CRISIS to get out of the country; need you to send 10c ([TEN CENTS]) to me and it's yours. Is NOT pyramid scheme
It would be interesting to see an fMRI, or see if he could navigate the maze with earplugs or some way of throwing off air pressure.
It's quite tricky to eliminate all possible ways someone can navigate a maze, so it may be better just to turn it dark.
You can't easily determine if he can still use his eyes, but working or not, they can only sense visible light. If he can navigate the maze without visible light, he's not using his eyes.
Or clicking on popups/banners faking themselves as a Windows alert.
My mother is actually rather savvy with computers (she spent some years in tech support and knows more about hardware than I do), but she still nearly fell for the "Malware has been detected on your computer" popup trick once.
Well, it's one thing to compete with someone, another to collaborate with someone in a market you're not fighting for, then entering that same market as a competitor.
If not evil, at least it won't make you friends. Ask Hasso Plattner and Larry Ellison...:P
What's the benefit of a patent for something that doesn't exist yet? At most, they're issued for things that are obvious or have existed for decades.;)
If they've stopped suing, that only means now is the time to counter-sue them into oblivion. They can't get away with this kind of crap and then just decide they've had enough. They must be made an example of for all the other maliciously litigious organizations: Abuse the justice system, and you will be crushed utterly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming this is a pseudonym? Or is he hiding abroad? Because if his real name is known, he can't be that hard to catch...
I'm not an astronomer, and I am completely at a loss for what all these acronyms actually say, other than speculating that it has something to do with processing radio-telescope data...
I read "UK Police to Stop hacking Home PCs" and thought Yeah right...
Yes, this is the end. I am sure that very soon, Microblogs will be as dead and obsolete as Email is.
Don't know - but it doesn't need to be 0 to be reliable. The genome is quite resistant to random mutation, having been subjected to it for all its existence.
The final estimate is 99.999%, presumably including some redundancy or error checking.
This is still one error in 100,000 base pairs, which is tens of thousands of errors in the 3 billion pairs of the human genome.
Of course, we're not talking about computer code here - this code has withstood (or rather adapted to) millions of years of inaccurate copying. Most of the errors would probably hit the vast majority of inactive areas, or be compensated by the natural redundancy mechanisms.
Are many of your clients referred to you by sysadmins after asking stupid questions?
That will only be a problem until the invention of a telepathic interface.
How small can a computer get if it is implanted into your brain?
Yes, rather strange...
The question whether "victimless" (artificial) pornography is judged as criminal is only just beginning to become relevant.
There are several ways to look at that - the question of whether the spirit of the law tries to outlaw "child abuse" or "media that encourage or describe child abuse". On one hand, mere possession of these media is prosecuted (suggesting the latter) - on the other hand, Nabokov's Lolita is freely available. Right now, the distinction is easy: Lolita does not really exist, the abuse victims do.
However, we can expect the distinction to become increasingly blurry with technological progress of virtual reality. Computers can already render faces that look human. In ten or twenty years, it will be a very real question where the burden of proof is to lie: Should the prosecution have to prove child abuse (as criminal law normally demands)? Or should owners or producers of such images have to prove it is an artificially rendered image (on the side of caution)? Or should the content, real or artificial, be banned completely because, well, "ew, you sicko"?
Don't get me wrong, freedom of expression is important. But so is the safety of children. This is not just some nanny-state legislature about whether the word "fuck" can be said in public.
The swamp of data will have to be severely redacted to fit into the archives. I guess that the records of secret renditions and pre-war Iraq intelligence have to go to make way for the pet video.
I mean, you've got to set priorities.
And we wouldn't want the lawyers to go hungry. ;)
GOOD DAY TO YOU SIRS OR MADAM
I AM [PRIME MINISTER OF KINGDOM OF THAILAND]. I HAVE BUSINESS PROPOSITION TO MAKE YOU. Have URGENT POLITICAL CRISIS to get out of the country; need you to send 10c ([TEN CENTS]) to me and it's yours.
Is NOT pyramid scheme
Signed,
[Thai prime minister]
Hey now, some of the best zombie apocalypses started out as garage or backyard projects!
Thanks! =P
It's quite tricky to eliminate all possible ways someone can navigate a maze, so it may be better just to turn it dark.
You can't easily determine if he can still use his eyes, but working or not, they can only sense visible light. If he can navigate the maze without visible light, he's not using his eyes.
Are you sure you didn't pick up Digital Fortress by mistake? :P
My problem is that my family are all quite knowledgeable with computers, so when they *do* ask me for help with a problem, I know it'll be a doozy.
Or clicking on popups/banners faking themselves as a Windows alert.
My mother is actually rather savvy with computers (she spent some years in tech support and knows more about hardware than I do), but she still nearly fell for the "Malware has been detected on your computer" popup trick once.
Or unicorns.
Well, it's one thing to compete with someone, another to collaborate with someone in a market you're not fighting for, then entering that same market as a competitor.
If not evil, at least it won't make you friends. Ask Hasso Plattner and Larry Ellison... :P
What's the benefit of a patent for something that doesn't exist yet? At most, they're issued for things that are obvious or have existed for decades. ;)
Something backward about this. :P
With the caveat that people might still be able to see what you are doing just by looking at you.
If they've stopped suing, that only means now is the time to counter-sue them into oblivion. They can't get away with this kind of crap and then just decide they've had enough. They must be made an example of for all the other maliciously litigious organizations: Abuse the justice system, and you will be crushed utterly.
Make them wish they were SCO.