Perhaps it makes more sense to do it in stages; use a free, open system until you have crappy articles on everything, and then eventually fork it and slow the pace down and restrict it to careful edits.
I wasn't up at the top, but I also don't edit because of deletion fanatics.
Sometimes I see a mistake about something I know enough about to find a reference, but no way, no how. I refuse to edit ever again.
Public voting doesn't make something factual, true, or well-supported by evidence. It only tells you what is popular; and opinions are always going to be more popular than facts, it is human nature.
And I thought dreaming about a 50 ft woman was weird!
But look, what makes you think it was a bad dream? This is slashdot, that was probably just somebody's deepest fantasy. At least he didn't tell us the part about the hot grits this time.
If the Flux Capacitor wasn't a quantum technology, why would it be needed for time travel?
Where did you think flux energy came from?!
Time is a form of quantum entanglement, this acts like friction when you move backwards. That's also why you get an electrical fire if you go backwards without a flux capacitor; as the electrons disentangle from time, they get stuck instead to the time travel device. You have to re-entangle them inside the flux capacitor.
Existing quantum algorithms would require multiple orders of magnitude improvement in quantum computing hardware just to crack 32 bit keys. The difficulty goes up exponentially as you increase the size, because of the basic design of the machine and the difficulty of entangling electrons. (or photons)
A regular computer scales in a linear fashion; you simply add more transistors. And you can divide up the problems between a large number of computers. You can't do that with a quantum algorithm; you need a bigger computer, with more qubits, and more qubits means a more difficult problem in entangling them.
The key sizes that they can realistically hope to crack in 100 years are smaller than the keys that you can already brute-force with current computers! But nobody uses 32 bit keys.
Existing quantum computers can't even crack an 8 bit key. A human can do that with a pencil. A programmable calculator can do it easily.
They didn't actually claim that. They gave you a list of things that they might have done, and didn't give you any information about what was actually done, and you selected the item in the list most favorable to the person who made the list, and then you substitute that one thing for the whole list.
In other places, they make much narrower claims, such as that their system "obscures the real-world travel habits of individual people."
"Obscuring" your real-world habits is not at all the same as "prove -- mathematically -- that there's no privacy impact."
And they don't tell you where they get the information, so you have no reason to think that there is any "proof" of anything. There is not proof, there is not even a claim that proof exists!
If you paid for the device before agreeing to the required "contract" then there might not be any "consideration" exchanged by them for signing it, and the only parts that would be valid are the limitations of warranty; and even those wouldn't apply in every state.
Most of the rest remains to be seen; you only have one party's characterization of what they're doing, but without the specific technical details to do an independent analysis of what they're actually selling.
Furthermore, cases wouldn't be "privacy" cases, that's a straw man.
If the details were public, much of what you say might be true; but we don't know. So the claims are clearly false.
I saw Mad Max: Fury Road, but I can't remember what happened. I saw the first 3 many times; two of them were even good! But the details aren't very memorable.
My top list: Gandhi (1982) Seven Samurai (1954) sequel to Seven Samurai (Star Wars) (1977) The Godfather Part II (1974) Ah! My Goddess! (2000) My Sassy Girl (2001) Rocky (1976)
I could name 50 better than Mad Max: Fury Road, even if they were only action films.
Mergers aren't the same as "going away." The same type of mistake could lead a person to think that cars were an unsuccessful product in the same time frame, because look how many companies there were before highways were built, and how many fewer there were afterwards!
All the industries were experiencing consolidation, "number of companies" doesn't tell you anything. It is not a valid proxy for number of workers. And which company's name was kept is often strategic, so the companies that used to be something different are less likely to have the name survive. But it doesn't mean they went away.
And you might be surprised by the amount of wood that was used for decades in trailers. Or perhaps even by the amount of metal in a carriage.
My advice, visit a "Pioneer Museum" and take a close look at the covered wagons that were used to settle the west coast! Lots of metal, very very similar construction to a flatbed trailer. A person building trailers in the 1830s could easily still build a trailer in the 1930s! That is how far away from being different they are.;)
The bulk of production issues are because the programmers didn't understand the code that they wrote.
There is no solution for that, because "hire better programmers" isn't actionable.
I'm not convinced it makes any difference at all which system of debugging is used other than in the time that is spent on the specific bugs; the best programmers will look directly at the code to find the problem. If they can't find the problem quickly, whatever gets them to understand their false assumptions has the same value. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that wandering around in a debugger, while not understanding the code, causes you to understand the code more. For a beginner taking their first steps, sure.
I don't play golf, but they have a saying: "Don't practice your bad put." If you're having an off day, don't practice doing it wrong. Find and correct the physical mistakes you're making, then practice your good put. The same is true in programming; extra time spent looking around while not understanding isn't good practice; it seems dubious to presume it has long-term instructive value.
National Interest isn't a "loophole." It is there by design.
If a country thinks that means they can decide cases based on politics, guess what? Other countries won't value their word. That is basic diplomacy, not politics.
And, isn't it a bit irrational to think that China can "cause pain" to Canada to get them to alter their stance towards their closest ally? That is just crazy talk.
If China is seen trying to do that, they lose automatically. Why would Canada reward that type of behavior by doing what they say? It seems to instead guarantee that China will lose influence in the world, and especially in Canada. China is stabbing themselves in their own face on this, how are they going to push their "belt and road" initiative when they're trying to use blackmail and nonsense to interfere in the courts of other countries?
Of course I'm a condescending prick, this is slashdot. Look at your own response, why would I be other than condescending? You're a fucking idiot who is also an asshole. You at your own words; you've earned no fucks to give.
Slashdot Mirror
amplify an heart condition.
Art isn't a "condition," it is just part of life. You have serious problems.
Used cyber isn't a super-weapon, it is just a log. Sorry.
But if it was from 1996, that's vintage now. Consider publishing.
Perhaps it makes more sense to do it in stages; use a free, open system until you have crappy articles on everything, and then eventually fork it and slow the pace down and restrict it to careful edits.
Maybe 10 years open, 20 years closed, repeat.
I wasn't up at the top, but I also don't edit because of deletion fanatics.
Sometimes I see a mistake about something I know enough about to find a reference, but no way, no how. I refuse to edit ever again.
Public voting doesn't make something factual, true, or well-supported by evidence. It only tells you what is popular; and opinions are always going to be more popular than facts, it is human nature.
Isn't most soccer with results published in English played in Europe anyways?
So ones not labeled that way, it will often still be the case. So if you're doing research, it only went from low quality to low quality.
The dashes are probably more useful, because uniform dates improves automated parsing.
You were going really really good, and then you put that laugh-line at the end and it totally destroyed your efforts.
Nobody suddenly stops asking for money, and nobody credible is going to even say it.
And I thought dreaming about a 50 ft woman was weird!
But look, what makes you think it was a bad dream? This is slashdot, that was probably just somebody's deepest fantasy. At least he didn't tell us the part about the hot grits this time.
rape (n)
...
3) an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: "the rape of the countryside."
Bombastic, but not outside the traditional meaning of the word.
I have what I want now, and I don't want my browser to have LESS functionality.
A lot of people don't comprehend this sentiment, or that it can't be argued against. If people disagree, they just want different things.
Change you didn't want is basically random noise.
If so they need a new plan; surely they can make more money off of it than out of it.
If the Flux Capacitor wasn't a quantum technology, why would it be needed for time travel?
Where did you think flux energy came from?!
Time is a form of quantum entanglement, this acts like friction when you move backwards. That's also why you get an electrical fire if you go backwards without a flux capacitor; as the electrons disentangle from time, they get stuck instead to the time travel device. You have to re-entangle them inside the flux capacitor.
I can't even read Cyrillic, Ivan.
Existing quantum algorithms would require multiple orders of magnitude improvement in quantum computing hardware just to crack 32 bit keys. The difficulty goes up exponentially as you increase the size, because of the basic design of the machine and the difficulty of entangling electrons. (or photons)
A regular computer scales in a linear fashion; you simply add more transistors. And you can divide up the problems between a large number of computers. You can't do that with a quantum algorithm; you need a bigger computer, with more qubits, and more qubits means a more difficult problem in entangling them.
The key sizes that they can realistically hope to crack in 100 years are smaller than the keys that you can already brute-force with current computers! But nobody uses 32 bit keys.
Existing quantum computers can't even crack an 8 bit key. A human can do that with a pencil. A programmable calculator can do it easily.
I guess the neckbeards managed to run most of them off by trolling.
They didn't actually claim that. They gave you a list of things that they might have done, and didn't give you any information about what was actually done, and you selected the item in the list most favorable to the person who made the list, and then you substitute that one thing for the whole list.
In other places, they make much narrower claims, such as that their system "obscures the real-world travel habits of individual people."
"Obscuring" your real-world habits is not at all the same as "prove -- mathematically -- that there's no privacy impact."
And they don't tell you where they get the information, so you have no reason to think that there is any "proof" of anything. There is not proof, there is not even a claim that proof exists!
If you paid for the device before agreeing to the required "contract" then there might not be any "consideration" exchanged by them for signing it, and the only parts that would be valid are the limitations of warranty; and even those wouldn't apply in every state.
Most of the rest remains to be seen; you only have one party's characterization of what they're doing, but without the specific technical details to do an independent analysis of what they're actually selling.
Furthermore, cases wouldn't be "privacy" cases, that's a straw man.
If the details were public, much of what you say might be true; but we don't know. So the claims are clearly false.
Differential privacy is a rigorous mathematical definition of privacy.
And the word "or" means you have no idea if they did that, or not.
I saw Mad Max: Fury Road, but I can't remember what happened. I saw the first 3 many times; two of them were even good! But the details aren't very memorable.
My top list:
Gandhi (1982)
Seven Samurai (1954)
sequel to Seven Samurai (Star Wars) (1977)
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Ah! My Goddess! (2000)
My Sassy Girl (2001)
Rocky (1976)
I could name 50 better than Mad Max: Fury Road, even if they were only action films.
My experience, regardless of company, is all three of those at the same time, but using confused wording.
Mergers aren't the same as "going away." The same type of mistake could lead a person to think that cars were an unsuccessful product in the same time frame, because look how many companies there were before highways were built, and how many fewer there were afterwards!
All the industries were experiencing consolidation, "number of companies" doesn't tell you anything. It is not a valid proxy for number of workers. And which company's name was kept is often strategic, so the companies that used to be something different are less likely to have the name survive. But it doesn't mean they went away.
And you might be surprised by the amount of wood that was used for decades in trailers. Or perhaps even by the amount of metal in a carriage.
My advice, visit a "Pioneer Museum" and take a close look at the covered wagons that were used to settle the west coast! Lots of metal, very very similar construction to a flatbed trailer. A person building trailers in the 1830s could easily still build a trailer in the 1930s! That is how far away from being different they are. ;)
Subaru is the perfect example; the Forester was a car, now the same old Forester that wasn't an SUV when it was made, is an SUV.
The Legacy isn't an SUV, and the only difference is 2" of height and the wheel wells.
The bulk of production issues are because the programmers didn't understand the code that they wrote.
There is no solution for that, because "hire better programmers" isn't actionable.
I'm not convinced it makes any difference at all which system of debugging is used other than in the time that is spent on the specific bugs; the best programmers will look directly at the code to find the problem. If they can't find the problem quickly, whatever gets them to understand their false assumptions has the same value. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that wandering around in a debugger, while not understanding the code, causes you to understand the code more. For a beginner taking their first steps, sure.
I don't play golf, but they have a saying: "Don't practice your bad put." If you're having an off day, don't practice doing it wrong. Find and correct the physical mistakes you're making, then practice your good put. The same is true in programming; extra time spent looking around while not understanding isn't good practice; it seems dubious to presume it has long-term instructive value.
You don't even sound progressive to me. Is this what the AM radio told you progressives think, or did you learn about it at the bar?
National Interest isn't a "loophole." It is there by design.
If a country thinks that means they can decide cases based on politics, guess what? Other countries won't value their word. That is basic diplomacy, not politics.
And, isn't it a bit irrational to think that China can "cause pain" to Canada to get them to alter their stance towards their closest ally? That is just crazy talk.
If China is seen trying to do that, they lose automatically. Why would Canada reward that type of behavior by doing what they say? It seems to instead guarantee that China will lose influence in the world, and especially in Canada. China is stabbing themselves in their own face on this, how are they going to push their "belt and road" initiative when they're trying to use blackmail and nonsense to interfere in the courts of other countries?
Of course I'm a condescending prick, this is slashdot. Look at your own response, why would I be other than condescending? You're a fucking idiot who is also an asshole. You at your own words; you've earned no fucks to give.