But also its disadvantages. I doubt a democracy would be able to build the pyramids, or the great wall of China. For a modern democracy getting the resources for a task like that? Of course scaled up to today's technology? Over several election periods? Ridiculous. Democracy means mediocrity. But since mediocrity also means that extremes are limited on both sides, this is when it comes to governments not always a bad thing. So while I certainly see the value in having a democratic government, I really doubt that democratically managed companies can be successful in the long run. All it needs is a slightly above-average competition, which is not encumbered with sluggish decision-making processes, and hello bankruptcy.
...like gamma radiation? Not that I am worried, I know that neutrinos have almost no interaction with normal matter and we are constantly exposed to them. Nevertheless, to send messages they have to interact at least a little. If the goal is to receive messages with neutrinos without the necessity of huge water tanks somewhere in a mountain the detection has to be improved, and/or the signal must be much stronger. I am just wondering if it is possible to create such an intensive neutrino beam that it actually becomes harmful.
She has a PhD in physics so I'm fairly sure that she isn't stupid.
Not stupid? Maybe, maybe not. It is a degree made on a GDR university. Though those were not generally bad, on the contrary, very often the study results were less dependent on scientific achievements, but on political good conduct.
Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."'
Exactly what I was going to comment; more frames = more chance for error checking.
Yes, was my thought, too, when I saw the examples. But I don't think it has to be that way. What if when no single frame contains the whole information? Several dot clouds in each frame, which only make sense in their completes over several frames? Or something like that. I think it might be possible to improve the video captchas without sacrificing too much of their better readability for humans.
Currently I don't have something, which really need encryption. However, should it ever be necessary I'd modify after each use the timestamps so it looks like the container was last accessed years ago. Within sensible limits, of course. It would be much more believable to have forgotten a password, when the last access was several month ago than when the timestamps says it was accessed last week or even yesterday.
If the other is used it deletes all the data you really wanted to hide and replaces it....
Even if you meant it funny... won't work. If your hd got seized, write blockers are used during forensics. Or a bit identical backup is made before something is done with it. They might not be able to read your data, but they are very capable to prevent any data changes as soon as they have the disk.
A few lines of code are all that is needed. Let's call this replacement 'ScumBox'. ScumBox just needs to be a barely working dummy, so that scum always can claim: 'We are not using BusyBox, this is ScumBox, which we adjusted to our needs'.
On the on hand you are right, on the other hand we know thousands chemical compounds and reactions, which do not exist or happen in nature. So just that this reaction does not happen naturally, it is no prove that it is impossible.
This might depend on the language. Some languages have a more fixed set of grammar and spelling rules than others. As programmer I love to learn patterns, which I can apply to a well defined group of problems. My native language is German. And it is an extremely ugly language when compared with a computer language. Exceptions of exceptions in exceptions in every imaginable grammar and spelling rule. For each exception there might exist a historical reason, but in many cases they don't follow a apparent logic. Many of the mnemonic tricks given by teachers to at least give the appearance of some logic behind those exceptions, are utterly worthless. They all could be compared with algorithms, which works only in 85% of all cases. As a programmer I would not want to rely on crap like that. So in contrary to your experience, most coders I know are much better in computer languages than in German.
Slashdot Mirror
But also its disadvantages. I doubt a democracy would be able to build the pyramids, or the great wall of China. For a modern democracy getting the resources for a task like that? Of course scaled up to today's technology? Over several election periods? Ridiculous. Democracy means mediocrity. But since mediocrity also means that extremes are limited on both sides, this is when it comes to governments not always a bad thing. So while I certainly see the value in having a democratic government, I really doubt that democratically managed companies can be successful in the long run. All it needs is a slightly above-average competition, which is not encumbered with sluggish decision-making processes, and hello bankruptcy.
If they do not make money off it, the most likely try to soil something.
Probably yes. But probably the same could be said about the police in China.
Hahaha.... Even if this were true, I don't live in the past.
That's why I added 'approximately'. ;-)
I think bigger.... Much bigger. Let's say approximately everything between Canada and Mexico.
...like gamma radiation? Not that I am worried, I know that neutrinos have almost no interaction with normal matter and we are constantly exposed to them. Nevertheless, to send messages they have to interact at least a little. If the goal is to receive messages with neutrinos without the necessity of huge water tanks somewhere in a mountain the detection has to be improved, and/or the signal must be much stronger. I am just wondering if it is possible to create such an intensive neutrino beam that it actually becomes harmful.
Not stupid? Maybe, maybe not. It is a degree made on a GDR university. Though those were not generally bad, on the contrary, very often the study results were less dependent on scientific achievements, but on political good conduct.
But yes, evil for sure.
http://johngushue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/angela_merkel.jpg
Yes, was my thought, too, when I saw the examples. But I don't think it has to be that way. What if when no single frame contains the whole information? Several dot clouds in each frame, which only make sense in their completes over several frames? Or something like that. I think it might be possible to improve the video captchas without sacrificing too much of their better readability for humans.
Every single one. Those who don't help the victims and look away for what reason ever, are in no way better.
Bad police?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm
... and very slow rockets. There are only behind the ship deadly. ;-)
Even if there is, it would be totally useless.
Why only for kids?
For Taliban, Americans, and other terrorists.
Currently I don't have something, which really need encryption. However, should it ever be necessary I'd modify after each use the timestamps so it looks like the container was last accessed years ago. Within sensible limits, of course. It would be much more believable to have forgotten a password, when the last access was several month ago than when the timestamps says it was accessed last week or even yesterday.
Nope, this is always topped by 'might makes right'.
Even if you meant it funny... won't work. If your hd got seized, write blockers are used during forensics. Or a bit identical backup is made before something is done with it. They might not be able to read your data, but they are very capable to prevent any data changes as soon as they have the disk.
A few lines of code are all that is needed. Let's call this replacement 'ScumBox'. ScumBox just needs to be a barely working dummy, so that scum always can claim: 'We are not using BusyBox, this is ScumBox, which we adjusted to our needs'.
On the on hand you are right, on the other hand we know thousands chemical compounds and reactions, which do not exist or happen in nature. So just that this reaction does not happen naturally, it is no prove that it is impossible.
This would their government in Washington never allow.
This might depend on the language. Some languages have a more fixed set of grammar and spelling rules than others. As programmer I love to learn patterns, which I can apply to a well defined group of problems. My native language is German. And it is an extremely ugly language when compared with a computer language. Exceptions of exceptions in exceptions in every imaginable grammar and spelling rule. For each exception there might exist a historical reason, but in many cases they don't follow a apparent logic. Many of the mnemonic tricks given by teachers to at least give the appearance of some logic behind those exceptions, are utterly worthless. They all could be compared with algorithms, which works only in 85% of all cases. As a programmer I would not want to rely on crap like that. So in contrary to your experience, most coders I know are much better in computer languages than in German.
And why not? I make most of my money with failed projects and crappy code.
Certainly, yes, but for how long?